Extradition of Julian Assange undermines freedom of speech

[oneworld2]

I did not misquote you, I said why do you think he hid if you think he was just doing things that are part of normal journalistic behaviors. Which is what you stated when you wrote:

reply 391 puts you misquote against my actual quote

Your continuing dishonesty about it is pathetic tbh

It's obvious you are just going to ignore an accurate response to that reply and carry on with the " i didn't misquote " rubbish

 

[Peter King]

reply 391 puts you misquote against my actual quote

Your continuing dishonesty about it is pathetic tbh

It's obvious you are just going to ignore an accurate response to that reply and carry on with the " i didn't misquote " rubbish

I did not misquote you. Nor am I being dishonest. If you think I broke the rules complain to the relevant authorities (our great moderators) because I do not think I misquoted you. I responded to your quote in which you stated that Assange did not do anything different than what isn't part of normal journalistic practices.

I stated that people who use normal journalistic practices do not hide in an embassy for several years. Which is a comment I stand by.

 

[oneworld2]

Sure, me saying he committed a crime is the real crime here. He did what he was accused of. He just never stood trial because he hid in an embassy.

There is no crime in what you are saying, but it is obvious you have him guilty of a crime for which you have provided ZERO evidence in support

But if you are not willing to do the time, you should not commit the crime.

There you go again, can't seem to help yourself. You have him guilty without any shred of evidence to support it and no trial having taken place to present anything.

Reasonable people, people who respect the rights of others, want to see a fair trial for any person accused of crimes. You have him guilty with no evidence because you believe the smear campaign.

You want him imprisoned without knowing whether or not he is actually guilty of any crime but have made no mention of those his work exposed as possible/probable war criminals.

 

[Peter King]

There is no crime in what you are saying, but it is obvious you have him guilty of a crime for which you have provided ZERO evidence in support




There you go again, can't seem to help yourself. You have him guilty without any shred of evidence to support it and no trial having taken place to present anything.

Reasonable people, people who respect the rights of others, want to see a fair trial for any person accused of crimes. You have him guilty with no evidence because you believe the smear campaign.

You want him imprisoned without knowing whether or not he is actually guilty of any crime but have made no mention of those his work exposed as possible/probable war criminals.

And more complaining about my opinion. Chelsea Manning was found guilty, she was in cahoots with Assange, a slam dunk for just about any prosecutor as the investigation into the crimes was already done, as was the trial. And as this is not a court of law, I am under no obligation to jump through hoops to provide what you think is evidence.

 

[oneworld2]

I did not misquote you. Nor am I being dishonest. If you think I broke the rules complain to the relevant authorities (our great moderators) because I do not think I misquoted you. I responded to your quote in which you stated that Assange did not do anything different than what isn't part of normal journalistic practices.

I stated that people who use normal journalistic practices do not hide in an embassy for several years. Which is a comment I stand by.

You did and I showed where and how but it's not against the rules here and even if it were I wouldn't report it. People lie about what others have said, people misquote, quote out of context etc etc it's just the nature of these types of board, it's annoying when you are trying to engage with people but it's fly shit in the grand scheme of things.

I live and I learn and ,imo , you can be a poster who posts shit about what others have said and denies it when confronted by them. Big deal.

 

[CLAX1911]

How about we let the courts decide?

The UK has a bad track record with freedom of speech.

 

[oneworld2]

And more complaining about my opinion. Chelsea Manning was found guilty, she was in cahoots with Assange, a slam dunk for just about any prosecutor as the investigation into the crimes was already done, as was the trial. And as this is not a court of law, I am under no obligation to jump through hoops to provide what you think is evidence.

Nobody is complaining about you opinion, They are saying it is made without anything to support it.

Manning was found guilty of leaking info. Assange was given that info but that doesn't mean he hacked the PCs or has done anything different than the editors of the NYT, the Guardian who have not been the focus of a global hanhunt and dodgy charges, extradition applications etc etc

Manning gave her statement and they re arrested her for not giving ANOTHER statement in the case building against Assange. That tells me that whatever happened in the Manning case wasn't enough to ensnare/implicate Assange enough to enable a successful prosecution. If it was they wouldn't have been putting her under such pressure to make another statement.

I don't see how you cannot see that

 

[Peter King]

You did and I showed where and how but it's not against the rules here and even if it were I wouldn't report it. People lie about what others have said, people misquote, quote out of context etc etc it's just the nature of these types of board, it's annoying when you are trying to engage with people but it's fly shit in the grand scheme of things.

I live and I learn and ,imo , you can be a poster who posts shit about what others have said and denies it when confronted by them. Big deal.

Nope, you did not nor did you show where I misquoted you. You disagreed with my comment.

And yet you keep engaging in what you think I did wrong, strange how that is.

And you can say all you want about me, it still does not make it true. So yes, big deal.

 

[oneworld2]

Nope, you did not nor did you show where I misquoted you. You disagreed with my comment.

And yet you keep engaging in what you think I did wrong, strange how that is.

And you can say all you want about me, it still does not make it true. So yes, big deal.

I actually did both, I disagreed with your comment and explained why AND I showed where you had misquoted me. You choose to lie about it and ridiculously think it is possibly worthy of contacting Mods lols

I live and I learn, and I have learned tonight that you can be both dishonest and unreasonable. Not like the Dutch people I have encountered but hey, everyone is a mixed bunch.

 

[Peter King]

I actually did both, I disagreed with your comment and explained why AND I showed where you had misquoted me. You choose to lie about it and ridiculously think it is possibly worthy of contacting Mods lols

I live and I learn, and I have learned tonight that you can be both dishonest and unreasonable. Not like the Dutch people I have encountered but hey, everyone is a mixed bunch.

Stop telling untruths would you please, you stated AND AGAIN I QUOTE YOU!!!!!!!!!

What crime do you imagine was committed by Assange that isn't part of normal media protocol on any day of the week?

To which I wrote AND AGAIN, I QUOTE:

Oh please, he did not hide in the embassy for 7 years or so because he "broke the normal media protocol on any day of the week.

Pure and simple, I did not misquote you, I took part of your quote and stated that people who do normal journalistic practices do not go and hide for years in an embassy.

So your grievances are not valid as I did not misquote anything, I just stated that people who do normal journalistic things (in a democratic country especially) do not go and hide out in an embassy to evade arrest.

 

[Jean-s]

My comment has nothing to do with that and I am not going to apologize for having an opinion that you disagree with.

You are unjustifiably selective in your criticism.

 

[Peter King]

You are unjustifiably selective in your criticism.

That is your opinion.

 

[oneworld2]

Pure and simple, I did not misquote you, I took part of your quote and stated that people who do normal journalistic practices do not go and hide for years in an embassy.

You took " part of my quote " ( we're getting there slowly )and added the word " broke"( which was never in that sentence ) to it to make it sound like I was saying he " broke normal media protocol "............that is not my position and never has been, so yes you are guilty of selective quoting ( part quoting ) in a bid to ascribe to me a view I never expressed. You even had to add your own word to make it plausible IE " broke "......that's not mine , it's yours Peter and your stupid projection that I am the one being dishonest in quoting peoples words is obvious.

It is YOUR view that he hid for 7 years because he committed a crime in the process of making available to the press the leaks from Manning, it is not mine.

I explained to you why I believe he hid and it was nothing to do with any crime, so I would not say he " broke" any protocols, let alone any laws and that's what my sentence you decided to " part quote " ( read selectively quote and misquote ( I never used the word " broke " ) is about, and that is on you.

You are trying to play the victim when it is you that has selectively quoted ( which you now admit, albeit by another name ) and added a word ( "broke") into a quote from someone else to completely present the opposite view they hold.

I realize English isn't your first language Peter, and I have been patient because of it, but it doesn't have to be in this instance. It has been laid bare that you selectively quoted and added your own word to completely misrepresent the view of someone else here. That's an honesty issue , not a language one.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Being someone who has been actively researching Assange, I discovered why he was hiding out in embassy. He was hiding out in the embassy because of sexual assault charges levied against him by two women in Sweden (who, if the pro-Assange narrative is to be believed, were not even interviewed separately). Assange had a paranoia about what would happen if he was turned over to Swedish authorities, and some of it has true. His general line of thinking was:
"If Sweden arrests me, they will extradite me to the US. If I'm extradited to the US, I will be tortured, if not killed, and certainly never see the light of day again."
So, he hid in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid being sentenced in the UK for, of all things, jumping bail.

The bit about Manning is different. According to an indictment filed by the Trump administration, Assange attempted to help Manning hack the top-secret databases. This added to his paranoia, but the charges were never filed under the Obama Administration. Obama did not want to touch Assange with a 5-foot-pole because he was afraid that the government would wind up having to define what journalism is, what leaks are appropriate, etc. Trump, however, -did- want to do this, largely because of his crusade against journalism in general, say what you will about whether what he said is accurate/justified.

Ergo, the claim by oneworld2 that it is not his view that Assange hid for 7 years because he published the Manning leaks has a 100% factual basis. The Manning charge did not come until 2019 (2020?), and even then it was disclosed by accident. He was actually hiding from Sweden or the the UK, and not because he published the leaks.

 

[oneworld2]

Being someone who has been actively researching Assange, I discovered why he was hiding out in embassy. He was hiding out in the embassy because of sexual assault charges levied against him by two women in Sweden (who, if the pro-Assange narrative is to be believed, were not even interviewed separately). Assange had a paranoia about what would happen if he was turned over to Swedish authorities, and some of it has true. His general line of thinking was:
"If Sweden arrests me, they will extradite me to the US. If I'm extradited to the US, I will be tortured, if not killed, and certainly never see the light of day again."
So, he hid in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid being sentenced in the UK for, of all things, jumping bail.

The bit about Manning is different. According to an indictment filed by the Trump administration, Assange attempted to help Manning hack the top-secret databases. This added to his paranoia, but the charges were never filed under the Obama Administration. Obama did not want to touch Assange with a 5-foot-pole because he was afraid that the government would wind up having to define what journalism is, what leaks are appropriate, etc. Trump, however, -did- want to do this, largely because of his crusade against journalism in general, say what you will about whether what he said is accurate/justified.

Ergo, the claim by oneworld2 that it is not his view that Assange hid for 7 years because he published the Manning leaks has a 100% factual basis. The Manning charge did not come until 2019 (2020?), and even then it was disclosed by accident. He was actually hiding from Sweden or the the UK, and not because he published the leaks.

Thx for the comment at the bottom


I have been following this situation with Assange and the other states involved, on and off , for a few years. I don't claim to be an expert and I will admit I have, sadly, forgotten much about the intricacies of the case wrt the Swedish rape allegations made against him. But I hold this view because it was formed when I did remember all of them I came across at the time.

The rape case was extremely dodgy from what I read at the time and it looked like it was only being pushed in an attempt to possibly extradite him to the US using that route. Then we have the British being lent on by the US for the same reason, to extradite him.

His fears about how he would be treated are well founded and proven just by his treatment at the hands of various govts since his wikileaks days. To try to ascribe that to an overwhelming sense of his own, alleged, criminality only is just a ridiculous assessment of the situation and, imo , shows that too many have bought into the establishment smear campaign and seem blissfully unaware of how much of a witchhunt this has been, with nobody else who played a role in getting Mannings leaks out to the world being remote;y treated in the same way.

Their silence is, again imo, amounting to an enabling/complicity in his horrific treatment and they should be ashamed of it.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

The UK just denied extradition to the US. So it seems that not even the UK is willing to define where journalism begins and ends. This gets even murkier with the Hillary Clinton hacks which, if he's charged for that, would have to define where a personal vendetta begins/ends and journalism begins/ends (he did not like Hillary at all).

The hack that Julian Assange is charged for, though it is no doubt the lamest charge ever, most notably because he didn't not succeed in the attack, and the least controversial of all the other potential journalism-defining charges.

 

[Peter King]

You took " part of my quote " ( we're getting there slowly )and added the word " broke"( which was never in that sentence ) to it to make it sound like I was saying he " broke normal media protocol "............that is not my position and never has been, so yes you are guilty of selective quoting ( part quoting ) in a bid to ascribe to me a view I never expressed. You even had to add your own word to make it plausible IE " broke "......that's not mine , it's yours Peter and your stupid projection that I am the one being dishonest in quoting peoples words is obvious.

It is YOUR view that he hid for 7 years because he committed a crime in the process of making available to the press the leaks from Manning, it is not mine.

I explained to you why I believe he hid and it was nothing to do with any crime, so I would not say he " broke" any protocols, let alone any laws and that's what my sentence you decided to " part quote " ( read selectively quote and misquote ( I never used the word " broke " ) is about, and that is on you.

You are trying to play the victim when it is you that has selectively quoted ( which you now admit, albeit by another name ) and added a word ( "broke") into a quote from someone else to completely present the opposite view they hold.

I realize English isn't your first language Peter, and I have been patient because of it, but it doesn't have to be in this instance. It has been laid bare that you selectively quoted and added your own word to completely misrepresent the view of someone else here. That's an honesty issue , not a language one.

My goodness, the complaining continues I see, I did not quote you, I used part of your quote and ADDED some words, which is totally within my right to do as I DID NOT QUOTE YOU. It was my POSITION that I was my position that I gave, I DID NOT quote you. I used part of your quote about normal journalistic practices. I did not change your quote and to claim I did (as you have been doing time and time and time and time again) is a false accusation.

And no, you were trying to play the victim, time and time again. I did not use your quote or it would have been in


these quotation marks and with YOUR name to it. And this has nothing to do with my language, and you have been patient ? You mean while falsely accusing me of changing your quote, give me a break. I did not misrepresent your quote, I posted my own opinion. So go complain to the moderators if you feel slighted, because I did nothing wrong.

 

[oneworld2]

My goodness, the complaining continues I see, I did not quote you, I used part of your quote and ADDED some words, which is totally within my right to do as I DID NOT QUOTE YOU

Peter, seriously, why do you persist with this absolute junk defence that even contradicts itself ?

In short, you don't have the right to use part of my quote, add words to it, so that it comes out as the complete opposite of my position. To think you do is bizarre. To think people will just accept that without calling you ut on it is even more bizarre

The bolded

After which it made it appear that I had stated that Assange had " broke normal media protocol "............I never said that but you put it altogether in quotation marks using my exact words except for the one you added that completely changed the view...........you don't have that right!

If you want to express your " position " use your own words preferably without hacking away and editing those of others that completely misrepresent their views. How hard can that be?

It's nothing to do with the rules here, there is no rule saying you have to be honest or desist from hacking quotes and adding words of your own to them to present them as the opposite of what they were intended to say.

When you put the words of a post you are quoting from, regardless of whether you include the name ( it's obvious whose words you are referring to ), in quotation marks it infers you are quoting them........it's actually a verbatim quote from me except for your decision to include the word " broke" .............which completely inverts the position.

You want to express YOUR views and positions then use YOUR words, simple.

 

[Peter King]

Peter, seriously, why do you persist with this absolute junk defence that even contradicts itself ?

In short, you don't have the right to use part of my quote, add words to it, so that it comes out as the complete opposite of my position. To think you do is bizarre. To think people will just accept that without calling you ut on it is even more bizarre

The bolded

After which it made it appear that I had stated that Assange had " broke normal media protocol "............I never said that but you put it altogether in quotation marks using my exact words except for the one you added that completely changed the view...........you don't have that right!

If you want to express your " position " use your own words preferably without hacking away and editing those of others that completely misrepresent their views. How hard can that be?

It's nothing to do with the rules here, there is no rule saying you have to be honest or desist from hacking quotes and adding words of your own to them to present them as the opposite of what they were intended to say.

When you put the words of a post you are quoting from, regardless of whether you include the name ( it's obvious whose words you are referring to ), in quotation marks it infers you are quoting them........it's actually a verbatim quote from me except for your decision to include the word " broke" .............which completely inverts the position.

You want to express YOUR views and positions then use YOUR words, simple.

The only junk science is yours, we are never going to agree on this, you (falsely IMO) claim I "quoted your and changed your quote" (absolute nonsense of course as your name was not in the sentence in which I used part of your comment) and I know I did nothing wrong (which you clearly disagree with, don't know why but that must be your thing). My post was (and this time a screen grab)



Your comment was NOT CHANGED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM
It was not changed, that I used part of your words IN MY OWN COMMENT, it was not changing your comment no matter how many times you illogically and insultingly claim that. To then impune my character and my knowledge of the English language as grounds I keep denying is also false. You were wrong, but you will never agree with that and I am not going to agree with your fake accusation so any discussion about this will go nowhere.

 

[oneworld2]

The only junk science is yours, we are never going to agree on this, you (falsely IMO) claim I "quoted your and changed your quote" (absolute nonsense of course as your name was not in the sentence in which I used part of your comment) and I know I did nothing wrong (which you clearly disagree with, don't know why but that must be your thing). My post was (and this time a screen grab)

View attachment 67312392

Your comment was NOT CHANGED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM
It was not changed, that I used part of your words IN MY OWN COMMENT, it was not changing your comment no matter how many times you illogically and insultingly claim that. To then impune my character and my knowledge of the English language as grounds I keep denying is also false. You were wrong, but you will never agree with that and I am not going to agree with your fake accusation so any discussion about this will go nowhere.

I will simply put the quote of mine against the quote you attributed to me and leave it for people to make up their own minds because we actually agree on one thing, we aren't going to agree on this.

my statement/question

"What crime do you imagine was committed by Assange that isn't part of normal media protocol on any day of the week? "

your comment

" Oh please, he did not hide in the embassy for 7 years or so because he "broke the normal media protocol on any day of the week.

See I never claimed and don't think he has broken any normal media protocols but your quoting of me makes it look like I do

Accuracy matters , especially when in completely misrepresents the view of the person being quoted. If you cannot see the difference between what I wrote and how you added a word that completely changed it there really is no hope for you, imho.

 

[Peter King]

I will simply put the quote of mine against the quote you attributed to me and leave it for people to make up their own minds because we actually agree on one thing, we aren't going to agree on this.

my statement/question

"What crime do you imagine was committed by Assange that isn't part of normal media protocol on any day of the week? "

your comment

" Oh please, he did not hide in the embassy for 7 years or so because he "broke the normal media protocol on any day of the week.

See I never claimed and don't think he has broken any normal media protocols but your quoting of me makes it look like I do

Accuracy matters , especially when in completely misrepresents the view of the person being quoted. If you cannot see the difference between what I wrote and how you added a word that completely changed it there really is no hope for you, imho.

No I claimed he did, that you are unwilling or unable to realize that is your problem, not mine. Now stop derailing the thread with your false accusations because we will NEVER agree on this.

 

[Peter King]

The UK just denied extradition to the US. So it seems that not even the UK is willing to define where journalism begins and ends. This gets even murkier with the Hillary Clinton hacks which, if he's charged for that, would have to define where a personal vendetta begins/ends and journalism begins/ends (he did not like Hillary at all).

The hack that Julian Assange is charged for, though it is no doubt the lamest charge ever, most notably because he didn't not succeed in the attack, and the least controversial of all the other potential journalism-defining charges.

But conspiring to commit a crime is also a crime, I think there is a better case with the Hillary Hacks but we will have to wait and see. And while I think that committing computer crimes should not be ignored by the state/government, such ludicrous punishments as he risks is ridiculous.

 

[oneworld2]

No I claimed he did, that you are unwilling or unable to realize that is your problem, not mine. Now stop derailing the thread with your false accusations because we will NEVER agree on this.

So you should have used your own words instead of hacking at the words of others and ending up misrepresenting the view they expressed. Simple

 

[oneworld2]

But conspiring to commit a crime is also a crime, I think there is a better case with the Hillary Hacks but we will have to wait and see. And while I think that committing computer crimes should not be ignored by the state/government, such ludicrous punishments as he risks is ridiculous.

I'm happy to get back on track


It is the first time a journalist / publisher has been charged using the Espionage Act afair. It is a dangerous precident

Ellberg got off with his disclosures because of illegal evidence gathering by the state. The same illegal attempts at evidence gathering have been used in the Assange case but it hasn't been thrown out nor is it likely that it will.

Assange has spent 22 months, of a 12 month sentence, ( how does that work ?) in a maximum security prison with terrorists and murderers for skipping bail. The whole thing smacks of revenge not justice

 

[Peter King]

I'm happy to get back on track


It is the first time a journalist / publisher has been charged using the Espionage Act afair. It is a dangerous precident

Ellberg got off with his disclosures because of illegal evidence gathering by the state. The same illegal attempts at evidence gathering have been used in the Assange case but it hasn't been thrown out nor is it likely that it will.

Assange has spent 22 months, of a 12 month sentence, ( how does that work ?) in a maximum security prison with terrorists and murderers for skipping bail. The whole thing smacks of revenge not justice

I think it is ridiculous that he is in such a high security jail, normal jail also prevents escape. And I am not saying that he deserves a long punishment, I do think he did something that according to US law is a crime (he is not a journalist) and he needs his day in court. Whether or not he will need to be punished yet again (seeing that he was in jail for this time and locked up in an embassy for so many years) is not up to me, I think he was punished enough. But I do support a civil suit from Hillary Clinton and the DNC against him.