Julian Assange Free Speech and Democracy

48 Comments

1. What a different world we would have if Assange hadn’t acted so contrary to the political interests of Hilary Clinton in 2015, when he released damaging information on the eve of the election.
   Was this enough to get Trump over the line?
   His actions directly aligned with Trump’s political interests.
   Look where that got the world
   Thanks Julian.

2. A Commentator, your comment only strengthens Assanges’ case. Ssshh, don’t frightened the chickens.
   Yeah, right.

3. Assange had the emails for months, but chose to release them on the eve of the election, a time that would deny Clinton the opportunity to mount a defence.
   The timing was deliberate, and to Trump’s direct political advantage.
   And note that the (apparent) foreign source of the material had (a continues to have) a well documented interest in Trump’s election, and in the undermining of confidence in Western Democracy
   If disclosure and transparency had been the only objectives of Assange, the outcome of the very close election would have been different.
   Now we have unbridled chaos, and incompetence.
   That’s the enduring legacy of Assange’s actions

4. Copied directly from ChatGPT without modification:
   “…There is no single universal legal definition of “journalist.”
   Different countries and organizations define the term differently depending on context such as:
   * press freedom laws,
   * shield laws protecting confidential sources,
   * accreditation systems,
   * employment status,
   * or professional ethics codes.
   Some definitions are:
   * broad — including bloggers, citizen journalists, independent publishers, and documentary creators;
   * narrower — limited to people employed by recognized news organizations.
   For example, organizations such as United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and many press-freedom groups increasingly use broad definitions that focus on the function performed rather than formal credentials or employer status.
   Common elements usually include:
   1. collecting information of public interest,
   2. evaluating or verifying it,
   3. and disseminating it to the public.
   Because of changes brought by the internet, social media, and independent publishing, the boundaries of journalism have become more debated than in the past. People disagree, for example, about whether activists, leakers, influencers, partisan commentators, or platform publishers should always be regarded as journalists.
   Importantly, there is generally no requirement for a formal journalism degree to be considered a journalist. Many well-known journalists entered the field through other backgrounds…”
   Thus I consider Julian Assange to be a journalist.

5. Yep, willing dupe or useful idiot supported by faux anti-imperilist tankies of the left, or right?

   Well documented, but ignored in Australia by indie &/or old left, how Wilileaks 2.0 wished to damage Clinton and the Democrats to benefit Trump by releasing emails from a GRU hack (like Epstein dumps, crowded with fluff and irrelevancies to mask perps paw prints)

   Allegedly via a USB and Farage at Ecuador Embassy (who were not happy being dumped with Assange), he has a suboptimal choice of associates, too many far right?

   See ByLine Times et al in UK and Mother Jones et al in the US, but not Counter Punch, for detailed analysis, avoided locally……

6. Yes, that’ similar to what Corn wrote at Mother Jones based on the Mueller Report.

   ‘Denounce Julian Assange. Don’t Extradite Him.
   17 Dec 2021 — Don’t Extradite Him. The prosecution of the conniving WikiLeaks founder poses a threat to American journalism.’ David Corn.

   Central to having Trump elected by a voter suppression strategy applied to Democratic voters; ditto Project Esther on Israel-Gaza,…

7. A Commentator
   Whether the WikiLeaks disclosures influenced the election is still debated. What is not disputed is that the material was genuine and revealed information voters may have considered relevant. In a democracy, citizens generally benefit from having more information about political candidates, not less. The real issue for me is whether publishing truthful information should be treated as a crime because it embarrasses powerful people or affects political outcomes.

8. Andrew, I think there is room for reasonable people to disagree about Assange’s political motivations, judgement, associates, or the impact WikiLeaks may have had on particular elections. Those debates will probably continue for many years.

   What concerns me more is the principle involved. If a publisher releases authentic information that exposes wrongdoing or information of public interest, should that publisher face decades of legal pursuit and imprisonment?

   Even some of Assange’s strongest critics, including journalists who disagreed with him politically, opposed his prosecution because they saw it as a threat to press freedom. David Corn’s position that you quoted is a good example of that distinction.

   For me, the important question is not whether Assange was perfect. He clearly was not. The question is whether governments should be able to prosecute publishers for revealing truthful information that powerful institutions would prefer to keep secret. That precedent affects every journalist, whistleblower and citizen, regardless of their political views.

9. Just how much compromising material exists that will embarrass powerful people, corporations, dinosaur institutions, and governments globally?

   Emotionally immature monarchs and dictators, Panama Papers, Epstein files anyone?

10. Those who criticise Assange while having nothing of significance to say, are supporting US imperialism.

11. Dennis, the facts and timing are important indicators of motivation.
    And the timing suggests Assange was more interested in damaging Clinton (ie helping Trump) than he was in promoting transparency.
    It seems the emails were obtained by wikileaks in March 2016.
    I think one tranch was released on the eve of Democrats convention, about 5 months later.
    The release of the second lot began about 3 weeks before the election,  and trickled out every day until the election. 
    I was in the US at the time, and there was intense daily speculation about what would be released.
    The speculation and coverage was so intense (immediately before the election) that there was little coverage of Clinton’s attempts mount her case.
    It was a masterclass in media manipulation by Assange.
    The apparent source of the emails has a continuing interest in destabilising democratic nations and supporting the (incompetent, erratic) Trump presidency.
    At best Assange was manipulated,  I think it is more likely that he was a willing participant in getting Trump  elected, undermining confidence in western democracy, the institutions that support it, and in promoting the interests those opposed to western democracy.
    I think Assange acted in a calculated and wilfully destructive manner.
    Whether or not it was criminal isn’t the issue I’m as bothered about, suffice to say I’m not sympathetic.
    I suppose his self imposed incarceration was enough

12. The real law has taken a battering this century, with FISA courts, censorsip and propaganda. Iseem to recall its first manifestation came with Howard knifing Corby. A far worse case in volved Dr Hanneef in the late 2000’s.

    Then Assange and other dissenters. Government found it could subvert justice and neuter the law as to individuals.

    It realised it could do to countries what it had done with individuals thru thing like FISA courts (A Commentator, look up “FISA!! )

    The birth of perversity began a long time ago and finds its full expression in the mindless slaughter in Palestine, Lebanaon and the arrogant attack on Iran.

13. The real law has taken a battering this century, with FISA courts, censorsip and propaganda and weasal wording.

    I seem to recall its first manifestation came with Howard knifing Corby. A far worse case in volved Dr Hanneef in the late 2000’s.

    Then Assange and other dissenters. Government found it could subvert justice and neuter the law as to individuals.

    Then it realised it could do to countries what it had done with individuals thru things like FISA courts (A Commentator, look up “FISA!! )

    The birth of perversity began a long time ago and finds its full expression in the mindless slaughters in Yemen, Palestine and Lebanon and the arrogant attacks on Venezuela
    and Iran.

14. I was just listening to a pundit talk on the USA and China situation in terms of the Thucydides Trap, where an older, declining empire becomes anxious at the manifestation of a new one.

    If Trump’s nonsenses don’t demonstrate it, you can wonder how easier it becomes for fossiled China to launch itself when Trump wastes billions blowing up sand crystals to dust, creating recessions, including un- solving his country’s revenue/debt problems by torpedoing revenue in favour of out of touch oligarchs and mindless rabid fanatics.

    The pundit wasn’t giving China high marks either, btw, as to its own problems, but the Chinese might feel a few Chinese survivors from a nuclear war might be better than the chances of flabby Americans surving one.

15. Unlike the rabbott, Assange is a ‘tech head’ and just did what he could.
    The results are huge with some positives for whistleblowing and some ‘redact’ negatives. Unfortuneately, he suffered more than his Swedish offence than required because of the fierce septic threats.
    ps
    I wish his free speech applied to the AEC who still hasn’t released preferences for Farrer, making it impossible to see how ON won the seat. A guess says Labor and the LNP must talk about Pauline.

16. Much has been made in comments about the intentions and motivations of Assange.
    But no evidence has been given.

    We see words such as indicators, suggests, it seems, I think, apparent, I think, more likely, I think (again), I suppose.
    All just conjecture, supposition, assumption.

    But the giveaway showing the reason for all this conjecture is seen in the repeated concern about the alleged undermining of Western democracy by Wikileaks.
    Yes, that’s the same Western democracy that is currently on a murderous rampage in the Caribbean and West Asia.
    We can’t have that glorious project undermined!
    I won’t even detail its past history of bloodlust.

    Until firm evidence is presented, this condemnation of Assange, this conjecture as to his motives, is a diversion to deflect attention from a regime that will use any means possible, no matter how despicable or horrendous, to impose its will on the world.

    “Whether or not it was criminal isn’t the issue I’m as bothered about, suffice to say I’m not sympathetic. I suppose his self imposed incarceration was enough.”
    And there we see an appalling disregard for those who have the courage to speak out, who put their personal welfare at risk, even their lives at risk, in the interests of humanity.
    A disregard that we should expect from one who is happy to see crimes go unpunished.
    Because that is the bottom line here.
    It matters not what personal opinion one has about Assange.
    To criticise his exposure of criminality without presenting anything of substance, is to engage in the protection of criminality.

17. The lies and propaganda against Assange have been legion.

    The rich righties hated their cages being rattled after their constructed nonsenses previous were exposed. The same sorts of lies happened, similar to Palestine in our era, as they have tried validate themselves after been exposed post previous guff.

18. Where’s Thommo? He needs to have a crack at Steve for stalking me!
    In my view, the critical pieces of evidence that Assange adopted a political strategy of assisting Trump are-
    • leaking the first tranch of emails on the eve of the Democratic Party convention
    • choosing a daily leak of damaging material every day in the final weeks of the campaign
    • this was after having the emails for months and months
    Anyone that goes out of their way to support the election of Trump, who is a willing participant in undermining democratic institutions,  and who partners with autocratic regimes (or those that support them) deserves little sympathy.

19. From Caitlin Johnstone 24.5.26
    I no longer feel a sense of relief when the US war machine shows signs of de-escalation, because these days it’s just a sign they’re getting ready to escalate somewhere else. If Washington sets up a memo of understanding with Iran it only means they’re preparing to regime change Cuba, with plans to re-target Iran using different strategies already being drawn up for a later date.

    It’s like when you know a guy who always abuses his girlfriends. If you see one of his partners escape her abusive relationship, after a certain point you’re going to stop feeling a sense of relief, because after watching the patterns play out over and over again you know he’s just going to find some other unfortunate woman to put in that spot. The amount of abuse remains constant; all that changes is the victim.

    The violence of the US empire remains constant. It moves around, but it doesn’t diminish. If you see it pulling back a bit, that only means it’s preparing to come roaring forward, like a wave to the shore.

    The tide of imperial violence is going to keep returning until the empire is dismantled.

    That is the empire, motivated by violence and dependent on violence, against which Assange pitted himself in the interests of those who have no means to fight back.
    And after all the genuine and serious concerns outlined by Denis in the article, AC is only concerned about the timing of the release of emails in 2016??!!

    The crux of the article was this — The Trust Fall: Julian Assange presents a disturbing question. What happens when revealing the truth becomes treated as a criminal act?
    But that is of no interest to AC.
    And the right of the public to know, is of no interest.

    For AC, the worst aspect of all the outlined threats to democracy, is the timing of the exposure of emails that show the machinations of dodgy Democrat figures.
    Such admirable priorities.

    We are talking about suffering on an unimaginable scale, a scale unprecedented in human history, that Assange had been exposing since at least 2007, and we should be concerned about the timing of releasing some pathetic emails?!
    A matter, furthermore, that was not raised in the article.
    In other words, a pet topic.

    AC claims the emails put Trump into power.
    Yep, that’s so important.
    We got one warmonger instead of the other warmonger.

    To criticise Assange’s exposure of dodgy dealings is to engage in nothing more than the undermining of one who had the courage to expose criminality on a massive scale.
    This just diverts attention away from criminality.
    The end result is the protection of criminality.

    So is that what’s going on here?
    Of course, that rather serious conclusion of mine, with its deliberately implied aspersions as to character, can be easily nullified by the simple expedient of a declaration that crimes which deserved exposure were indeed committed, and that we are lucky that Assange took up the challenge.

20. SD, thank you. A koala stamp coming your way.

21. Steve I’m (almost) always glad to be able to differentiate my views from yours.
    And there are few that illustrate that difference more than you putting the Democratic Party presidential nominee on the same plane as the destructive, outrageous, deranged, racist, misogynistic, narcissistic, erratic,  deeply flawed, irrational, make-it-up-as-you-go Trump.
    No moral compass, ditto economics, international relations, trade, health, education…

    Trump’s record speaks for itself,  and that’s the guy Assange helped into the Whitehouse, with the support of people like you.

    …but my real interest is finding out where Thommo is, so that he can have a crack at you for stalking me

22. AC, good luck with the search. I’m reminded of the cartoon from years ago that showed a pair of pooches perched on stools with a screen in front of them, with one saying to the other: ‘On the internet, no-one knows you’re a dog.’

    If I may, had Bill Clinton’s wife won the presidency, she’d have been as gung-ho, perhaps more, for military engagement with the so-called ‘enemies’ (manufactured, as is nearly always the case) as the present incumbent. Rock and a hard place, as is so often the reality of American geostrategy.

23. Kanga, many thanks, I appreciate that.

    And yer know how much I luv koala stamps! 🙂

24. If disclosure and transparency had been the only objectives of Assange, the outcome of the very close election would have been different.
    Now we have unbridled chaos, and incompetence.
    That’s the enduring legacy of Assange’s actions

    The enduring legacy?
    No mention of the courage it took to go into battle against the greatest war machine the world has ever seen?
    A war machine that has assassins on speed-dial?
    That counts for nothing?

    It’s time for AC to stop pussyfooting around.
    If this matter is so important, he should submit an article so he can put on show, in detail, the superior “moral compass” of Hilary Clinton.

    But I would urge extreme caution before going down that particular path.

25. A commenter, I really hoped coming here that you woud refrain from the sugar hit, on an actually important issue for today.

26. Yes Julian, go for it. You joined the list of famous journalists / publishers and continued a old tradition of exposure of deep criminality in the political world.

    Your exposures were so special, as the text was written by the perpetrators, who were unable to deny it. All they could do to the exposers was close ranks, threaten, intimidate, wage financial warfare, and unlawfully blockade or incarcerate. The whole world watched on as they did it to you. You endured it an won.

    Yet along the way the political world increasingly cowed the msm journalistic world. Instead, the msm’s concentrated corporate media machines backed-in the crooks by contriving mis/disinformation and omission, forsaking Earth’s environment, human decency and ingenuity only for profit.

    This msm paradise for despots has brought with it a strangulation of language and logic disguising motive, in turn a brazenness and intensity by the despots and their flunkies and opportunists against their targets and opponents. And accompanied by gross consumerist advertising, ordinary citizens get confused, divided, desperate and anxious. A nightmare status quo seeking the ‘strongman’ (the despot’s dream).

    The elderly and uninformed are so often confused, and the young’ns nihilistic, destructive and violent reflecting the only world presented to them.

    Oz has the most concentrated msm in the western world. Msms that do not partake in investigative journalism, ape one another, calls our PM ‘weak’ (compared to what?), fill citizens ears with simplistic drivel, undermine social cohesion, and saturates all with hostility and enmity.

    All this while we are finding it increasingly difficult to stem the tide of exploitation and extraction by the world of tax avoiding and extractive multinationals and oligarchs (old and budding).

    In our old (despicable) buddies Britain and America, for decades, it hasn’t mattered what political party is in power, they’re all infected and in their death throes.

    Even Trump knows, he’s trying to help himself, before he’s turfed out, to govt treasury via a ‘weaponization’ US$1.8 billion plus complete immunities for anything he ever did. Only in America!

27. As I pointed out, Assange had the emails for months and months.
    The first tranch were released on the eve of the Democratic Party convention,  when the delegates were locked into Clinton.
    Had Assange released them earlier,  Clinton may not have been capable of continuing her candidacy.
    Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley were both entirely credible candidates,  and either would have been far more stable and capable than Trump.
    I would have supported either in front of Clinton. 
    However,  my view is that Clinton would have been far less erratic than Trump in foreign policy and trade. She would not have cancelled the Iran agreement.
    She would have maintained health and education policy.  She wouldn’t have punished low income earners to reward Trump’s mates.
    She would not have formed a gestapo style organisation to persecute immigrants.
    There are a multitude of reasons to prefer a mainstream Democrat presidency to a narcissistic, deranged Trump one.
    However,  Assange waited to release the emails, until the Democrats only had one option- Clinton. 
    In my view, this was a manipulative and deliberate strategy.
    Then the events during the weeks leading up to the election reinforce this. Daily release,  daily headlines,  daily speculation about what would be next.
    As I’ve repeated,  if Assange had been only committed to transparency and  exposure,  the damaging emails would have been released many months earlier,  and this most likely would have cruelled Clinton’s campaign before it gained momentum. 
    Assange manipulated the timing of the release to help Trump.
    So far, no one has advanced any analysis to counter mine.
    ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    But more importantly,  where’s Thommo to have a crack at Steve for stalking me?

28. Enough of dealing with wishful thinking.
    Let’s head back to the real world.

    You learn something new every day.
    I just came across this —
    Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation which originated within the Department of Defense of the US government in 1962.
    The proposals called for Central Intelligence Agency operatives to both stage and commit acts of terrorism against US military and civilian targets, blame them on the Cuban government, and use them to justify a war against Cuba.
    The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense.
    Although part of the US government’s anti-communist Cuban Project, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff but then rejected by President Kennedy.
    None of the false flag operations became active under the auspices of the Operation Northwoods proposals.
    Following presentation of the Northwoods plan, Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, although he became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963.

    We can see from the career of Lemnitzer that the war machine is a self-sustaining entity that never falters.
    It has a life of its own, like something out of a sci-fi movie.
    Which is why Caitlin Johnstone is correct in saying The tide of imperial violence is going to keep returning until the empire is dismantled.

    And we should not assume that Kennedy’s rejection of Operation Northwoods makes him one of the good guys.
    Operation Mongoose, also known as the Cuban Project, was an extensive campaign of terrorist attacks against civilians, and covert operations, carried out by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in Cuba.
    It was officially authorized on November 30, 1961, by U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

    So the mayhem we see today is simply business as usual.
    And as the US-based organization Refuse Fascism pus it: Every single day of Business-as-Usual normalizes Fascism, allows further horror to be perpetrated, and degrades the decent people who are opposed to this.

    It was business-as-usual that Julian Assange fought against, on our behalf.
    …………………….

    When the Bing feed showed up on my computer uninvited I detested it, but have since grown rather fond of it.
    Every now and again it throws up a little gem like Operation Northwoods.
    They might have to adjust the algorithm. 🙂

29. “the superior “moral compass” of Hilary Clinton”
    As I said-
    “my view is that Clinton would have been far less erratic than Trump in foreign policy and trade. She would not have cancelled the Iran agreement.
    She would have maintained health and education policy. She wouldn’t have punished low income earners to reward Trump’s mates.
    She would not have formed a gestapo style organisation to persecute immigrants.
    There are a multitude of reasons to prefer a mainstream Democrat presidency to a narcissistic, deranged Trump one.”

30. Long gone are the days when I might react with surprise or dismay at yet another revelation of the depths of evil from within the nation of Great Satan. Military men conniving to murder their own countrymen and blame it on Cuba, willing to destroy domestic assets, ghouls, no other word for it, devil’s children, antihumanitarian, heartless, conditioned robotic killing machines, and Northwood is only one example amongst hundreds of acts committed by either the CIA or the military, sometimes separately, sometimes in cooperative unison.

    The degree of psychological compartmentalisation is breathtaking, albeit Hannah Arendt would describe these criminals as bland, ordinary… that they would sit around the table plotting murders, on the government tick, casually discussing how to disseminate terror, grief, bloodshed, and how to lie about it, to cover up their crimes, then go home at night to the wife & kids, a hug for the missus, bounce the kiddies on the knee, say they had a good day at work, everything’s fine, lying so easily to those who want to believe they’re the best dad in the world, the best husband. These American apparatchiks would have fitted right in within Hitler’s muderous regime, within Stalin’s terror pogroms, within any South American dictator’s assassination program.

    That’s where the terror lies, when ostensibly good people accept the rationale for behaving from a baseline of extraordinary evil.

31. 4 or 5 times now we’ve seen a list of guesses, assumptions, suppositions, that are claimed to show that the Democrats are a better option than Trump.
    Nothing of substance.
    Self-indulgence.
    Self-amusement.
    I reckon Phil P could come up with a more humorous description.
    Just pointless repetition, and to what end?

    This hijacking of a thread to indulge a pet peeve has nothing to do with the subject of the article.
    Those with a pet peeve should submit an article for publication.

32. Here’s a few easy ones Steve.
    1/. We know Trump abandoned the agreement with Iran regarding nuclear enrichment and development of nuclear weapons. War and international economic chaos resulted.
    We know Clinton didn’t, and committed to maintaining the agreement.
    Can you see the difference in ethics and morality?
    2/. We know Trump has used a gestapo style organisation to harass, detain and deport people whose skin shade isn’t like his orange.
    Clinton didn’t, she has opposed the racist policy.
    Can you see the difference in ethics and morality?
    3/. Trump has randomly and precipitously applied severe tarrifs on many trading partners.  Trading chaos ensued.
    Clinton had no proposal to do this and has opposed this policy
    Do you notice the difference.
    ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    But Steve, if you’re not interested in my comments, you’re welcome to discontinue replying

33. So still we see a determination to avoid the subject of the article, by wandering off to a subject of no significance.

    AC is giving a very good impression of someone who is a shill for the Empire.

    He can put that one to bed by simply declaring that crimes were indeed committed by the US and that we are lucky that Assange was on hand to expose them.

34. Steve, I’ve justified my views about Assange.
    I have identified reasonable grounds to support my view that Assange manipulated the release of Clinton’s emails to assist Trump
    No one has put forward alternative analysis to support any notion that the process and timing of the release was coincidental, and Assange was motivated only by a desire for transparency.
    But you’ve posed several responses to my comments**
    I’ve replied.
    ** Thommo apparently regards such replies as “stalking”

35. “I have identified reasonable grounds to support my view that Assange manipulated the release of Clinton’s emails to assist Trump”

    No-one cares.
    That’s not what the article is about.

    But they will certainly care about this.

    AC would rather be seen as a shill for the Empire than concede that crimes were committed by the US, and that we are lucky that we had Julian Assange on hand to fight on our behalf.

36. Steve, you initiated the exchange (yet again)
    Are you always so insistent on sticking to the narrowly defined topic? As far as I can see, the article is about Julian Assange, from a sympathetic point of view.
    I’ve taken issue with that orientation and I have detailed my reasons for this.
    You have repeatedly commented and challenged, I have replied.
    Now you profess not to care. In fact, you claim no one cares.
    Your insistence on replying belies your claim.
    If you don’t care, please feel absolutely no obligation to initiate exchanges or continually reply.
    I guarantee I won’t be offended.

37. “Now you profess not to care”.

    I wondered how long it would take for the fabrications to appear.

    I really, really do care when a defender of the Empire can state that the election of Trump is the “enduring legacy of Assange’s actions”.
    That was the vile comment that drew me into the discussion.

    And still no concession from AC that crimes were committed by the US, and that we are lucky that we had Julian Assange on hand to fight on our behalf.
    Hmm.

    Shill. Noun — a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with said person or organization, or have been paid to do so.
    Hmm.

    Clear the air.
    AC should just come out and say it.
    “We are lucky that Julian Assange put his welfare at risk on our behalf.”
    Just that one little sentence.
    It’ll barely hurt at all.
    Well, maybe a little.

38. Steve, when you initiate an exchange with me, you don’t get to make demands about the nature of my response.
    But how about I offer you a way out of this embarrassment…
    Given that you’ve provided no alternative rationale regarding the manner Assange drip fed the Clinton emails ((over many months), just agree that this was designed to assist Trump and harm the campaign of Trump’s opponent
    Then I’m sure I’ll be able to find something positive to say about Assange.

39. “you don’t get to make demands about the nature of my response.”

    Oh, yes I do.
    When AC’s first response to me is to accuse me of stalking, I’ll say whatever I think appropriate.

    Readers will note that AC has mounted no defence against an accusation that would have anyone else wild with indignation.
    But we see none of that.
    No indignation, no rebuttal.
    Why?
    Because AC has no shame.
    He’s been caught out in the past for fabricating United Nations documents, and showed no contrition. Just as he shows no acknowledgement here about fabricating my position.
    He now presents as a servant of the Empire, has been called out for that, and he just does not care.

    His obsession with Clinton emails is designed to divert attention from the fact that it makes no difference who is in the White House. The continuity of the US agenda continues unabated.
    The commission of crimes goes on unabated.
    That is what is being protected.

    This is not a trivial matter.
    The forces of US imperialism are at work 24/7 around the globe, committing crimes, destabilising governments, arming and training death squads, imposing sanctions that kill the innocent and the vulnerable.
    US imperialism is a force for evil, and we have here, in our midst, one who conceals his connection to that war machine.
    So yes, I will make demands as to the nature of his responses.

    AC has the perverted belief that he can make vile comments (yes, there was more than one) about a true servant of humanity, and not be held accountable.
    He believes that when challenged to justify vile comments, he can use conjecture, assumption, and supposition, instead of hard evidence. And can then accuse those who challenge, of stalking.
    How many times now, has the stalking accusation been made?

    Vile comments cannot be justified by crystal-ball-gazing and conjecture.
    Assange could well be the Devil incarnate for all I know.
    If so, let’s see the evidence.
    Conjecture about emails is not evidence.

    Vile comments that are unsupported are the product of …..?

    So why has he persisted?
    He is simply conforming to what is expected of a loyal servant of Empire.
    Assange is hated by the Empire, and so, is also hated by AC.
    AC, by not recanting in the slightest, has shown that he is indeed a shill for US imperialism.
    Is he being paid?
    Is he merely a product of brainwashing?
    To be frank, I’m not sure which of those possibilities occupies the lower position on the integrity scale.
    And at this point, I see no other possibilities.

40. Straight forward refutation from Steve.

    He/she/it…

    This is someone who routinely derails threads at the expense of honesty.

41. Steve, you really need to work on your memory.
    Do you recall thanking Thommo for his claim that I was stalking you (because I replied to your comments)?
    You expressed your gratitude for this claim by him, even though you repeat you mantra- “blogging isn’t for the faint hearted”
    So what is it? Is replying to comments posted on a blog site stalking or not?
    •••••••••••
    But how about you advance some analysis that shows Assange didn’t set out to help Trump?

42. The only conversation I recall from Thommo was when he asked of AC — “Some people come into a conversation with the aim to learn other perspectives and to exchange ideas respectfully, others come in looking to piss on someone else’s carpet for a change. Which one have you come for?”

43. Steve, I mentioned your memory.
    However, I’ll simply suggest that you provide some analysis or rationale as to why are arguing that Assange didn’t help Trump’s campaign.
    Do you believe the timing and actions I’ve outlined were coincidental?

44. “Steve, I mentioned your memory.”
    I’m pretty confident that it’s not MY memory that is a problem.

    As in– “Do you recall thanking Thommo for his claim that I was stalking you (because I replied to your comments)?”

    I do remember thanking Thommo for his questions on international law. That was when AC intervened in that discussion.
    Nothing at all wrong with that, this is a blog after all, but a certain amount of respect or consideration keeps everything humming along in a civilised manner.
    And AC’s obsessive nature does not do civilised.

    He could not tolerate Thommo and me having a mature discussion about law.
    He intervened with a lie.
    He stated to Thommo that my “wordy opinions should be regarded as only wordy opinions, and unsupported by reputable international law experts.”
    This was a lie to support yet another AC obsession.

    AC knew that I had previously presented, in detail, a paper by Daniel Bethlehem QC that showed that pre-emptive strikes in defence are backed by international law, and had been for well over a century.
    That paper was supported by the Australian Attorney-General at the time.

    I was obliged to present that information at least twice, possibly three times, because obsessions are hard to penetrate. As we see here on this thread.
    That paper is so significant that it’s on file at the United Nations Law Archive, so my “wordy opinion” is in fact supported not only by an individual reputable law expert, but by the entire body of international law.

    But this is now a little alarming.
    A UN document?
    The possibilities are unlimited.
    Someone with a track record of misrepresenting UN documents could have a field day with that one.
    🙂
    ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    The 5th Law of Blogging states — Never ask a question unless you know the answer.

45. Steve, you’re singularly focused on a comment that I’ve retracted and explained.
    What the United Nations called armed groups, I referred to as “Russian backed separatists”
    I think they were, and I have explained it was my interpretation (and one that is widely held) rather a direct quote from the UN
    But that wasn’t what you thanked Thommo for.
    Nonetheless, on this thread-
    • you’ve equated Clinton with Trump, without differentiation on numerous important domestic and international policies,
    • you’ve stated my comments aren’t relevant to this thread without suggesting why they aren’t,
    • you’ve tried to change the subject
    • you have avoided dealing with any alternative rationale to mine, which demonstrates that Assange manipulated the release of Clinton’s emails to cause maximum damage to the Democrats and therefore assist Trump’s campaign

46. Here we go again.
    Will there ever be an end to the lies?
    In the thread I referred to, (as I had no options, given AC’s fear of links) there was no mention of armed groups. AC has a memory of convenience.
    Apologies to all for what’s to follow, but lazy or lying comments on serious matters degrades the very concept of blogging. Here’s the relevant section of the thread.

    Thommo — A Commentator is right to point out that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was contrary to International law,…

    Steve — Thommo, where did you get the idea that “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was contrary to international law”?
    There seems to be a widespread misconception that such law begins and ends with the UN Charter, but that is not the case.
    International law has been evolving for hundreds of years.
    As far as I know, the UN Charter was designed around that body of law. It did not replace it.
    It was possibly not reported in the West, but Russia just a few days ago warned the US that its actions in Iran could end up in a war crimes tribunal, so clearly Russia believes that it has nothing to fear in that regard.

    Thommo — Steve, I’m no international law expert and have relied on reporting of supposed law experts quoting and interpreting application of the UN Charter.
    I’m only too happy to learn more about it. Is this body of law that evolved prior to the UN Charter documented in one place? Which body/bodies was/were responsible for these laws? Which of these laws would protect Russia’s actions?

    AC — Steve, that nonsense has been debunked.
    As we have established, there is no reputable international law expert, academic or scholar who has published a peer reviewed paper who has argued that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is legal under international law. You’ll recall that when I challenged you to cite a few international law scholars in this respect, you provided an opinion piece by someone who is not an international law expert.
    The opinion piece you used to justify your claim about legality was significantly based on the “genocide” claim by Russia, and embarrassingly (as you will recall) this was comprehensively refuted by the International Association of Genocide Scholars.
    He also used Article 51, as you have previously, even though there are no actual international law experts who support this
    May I suggest you leave it at that, I don’t wish bore everyone with a repetition of that exchange
    ••••••••••
    By the way, did you find the links to support your claim that I had (apparently on multiple occasions) misrepresented a United Nations report about Ukraine? No

    Steve (trying to ignore the troll) — Thommo, as far as I know that body of law is not documented in one place.
    It seems to be a “collection” of agreements and conventions that have been accepted as having universal credibility.
    For example, the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and the Geneva Protocols of 1928 that were an addition to the Hague Conventions. All these existed before the UN came into being, and still have relevance.
    After World War II, the judges of the military tribunal of the Trial of German Major War Criminals at Nuremberg Trials found that by 1939, the rules laid down in the 1907 Hague Convention IV–Laws and Customs of War on Land were recognized by all civilized nations and were regarded as declaratory of the laws and customs of war. Under this post-war decision, a country did not have to have ratified the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare in order to be bound by them.
    So as you see, international law, because it evolves, is a huge grey area.
    To your question “Which of these laws would protect Russia’s actions?”, Putin quoted Section 51 of the UN Charter.
    The relevance of S.51 has been challenged because the Donbass republics are not members of the UN, even though an armed attack on the Donbass was occurring.
    That argument has no merit.
    A number of decisions have been reached under Article 51 by the UN Security Council or General Assembly related to the State of Palestine which is not a member of the UN, and involving the right of collective self-defense, and no party made the argument that a Member does not have the right of self-defense with a State which is not a Member of the United Nations.
    There is another provision that applies to your question. The intervention by Russia is also covered under international law by the Responsibility to Protect, in force since 2005.
    There was a rebellion by the people of the Donbass to protect their language, and status as Ukrainian citizens, that had been diminished after the success of the coup in 2014
    The response by Kiev to the protest was to attack the Donbass by any means including shelling, for 8 years.
    In Putin’s address to the Russian people on the eve of the intervention, the R2P was foremost in the reasons given.

    Thommo — Steve, thanks for answering my questions. It gives me food for thought.

    Thommo (unable to resist lecturing the troll) — A Commentator, yyeeaaah, you don’t stalk people on here, do you.
    Thank you for illustrating my point once again.

    Steve — My pleasure Thommo, thanks for the questions.

    AC — Thommo you ducked posting a definition of “stalking” that includes posting a single comment on my local councillor’s Facebook page and following it up with an email. Now you’re suggesting that reminding Steve of his record of commentary here about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is also stalking? Which definition of stalking are you using? The CS Lewis/Humpty Dumpty one? “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
    •••••••••
    But unless Steve is a reputable international law scholar or expert, his wordy options should be regarded as only… wordy opinions, and unsupported by reputable international law experts.
    Steve had repeatedly said “blogging isn’t for the faint hearted ”
    In this context, I can’t imagine that he objects

    Steve — It seems to have been forgotten in the chaos that followed the attack on Iran, that one of the false reasons given for the attack was to end the oppression of the Iranian people by an alleged dictatorial regime.
    This has a parallel in US foreign policy, from not all that long ago.
    On almost this date in 1999, NATO began its illegal bombing campaign of Yugoslavia, also without permission from the UN Security Council.
    Between 1200-2500 civilians were killed and 5000 were wounded.
     
    During the 3 months of bombing, NATO dropped between 10-15 tonnes of depleted uranium bombs. After years of supporting right-wing nationalist forces to undermine and weaken the integrity of Yugoslavia, NATO began its campaign to break up the socialist state.
     
    Though it claimed to be intervening to stop ethnic cleansing, the Assistant to US Secretary of Defense Strobe Talbott, revealed the real reason for the war: “It was Yugoslavia’s resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform, not the plight of Kosovar Albanians, that best explains NATO’s war.”
    “Resistance to broader trends” is of course, resistance to Western domination.
    And in the aftermath to this tragedy, when the dust has settled and the blood has dried, someone in the US will let it slip that “It was Iran’s resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform, not the plight of ordinary Iranians, that best explains the US/Israeli war.”
    …………………………………………………………………
    That was the end of the thread.
    So as readers can see, AC is misrepresenting again.
    There was no discussion of “armed groups.”
    The reference to legal opinion was clearly in regard to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and I quoted two legal scholars on the matter.
    The one that AC states is not an expert is in fact a highly regarded authority on human rights. Human rights, by definition, have universal applicability and most certainly apply to armed aggression perpetrated by a state on its own people, as occurred in the Donbass. The opinion of Daniel Bethlehem QC, whose opinion now resides in the UN Law Archive, is of no interest to AC, does not rate a mention because AC has no interest in truth.

    So, who is it has the memory problem?
    And just to clarify, I do not throw the “troll” label around lightly, but AC’s inability to deal truthfully with challenges to his pet peeves would try the patience of a saint. I ain’t no saint.
    Those with a bent for a little masochism can see the entire sorry tale here:
    https://theaimn.net/us-israel-war-against-international-law/

47. Fine Steve, you just cosy up to someone who characterised blog replies as stalking.
    And let’s note that you’ve accused me of saying you were stalking me, when all I noted was the absence of (the expert) Thommo!
    During this exchange you have stated my comments are not relevant to the subject (but didn’t elaborate when challenged), you are critical of my analysis of Assange’s actions but refuse to advance any rationale that explains the timing and actions of Assange.
    You’ve equated Clinton with Trump,  but when challenged you won’t justify your claim.
    That’s your record on just this thread

48. “you are critical of my analysis of Assange’s actions but refuse to advance any rationale that explains the timing and actions of Assange.”

    Why would I play along with an obsessive personality on a matter unrelated to the article?
    Why would I indulge AC’s pointless repetition of pointless points about a pointless point?
    And because I knew I was dealing with an obsessive, I went one better than than to engage. Instead, I challenged AC to submit an article for publication, given the matter was so important to him. As yet, I see no article, so perhaps that’s a feature of his condition.
    Perhaps importance is sometimes not so important, depending on the mood.

    “And let’s note that you’ve accused me of saying you were stalking me, when all I noted was the absence of (the expert) Thommo!”
    No, that’s not all that was noted. More distortion.
    AC’s first words to me were — “Where’s Thommo? He needs to have a crack at Steve for stalking me!” That was accusing me of stalking. If that was not the intention, too bad. It reads as an accusation and I took it as an accusation.
    And was it necessary to repeat the Thommo beef over and over?
    In responses to me?
    if AC has a beef with Thommo he can take it up with him.
    I will not be used as a vehicle for AC to resolve problems with others that arise from his rather distinctive personality traits. (That’s me being polite.)

    Readers will note that as a discussion drags on, AC’s responses get lamer and lamer. It’s because his dodgy positions get harder and harder to maintain. The air of certainty evaporates.
    He operates on the principle (it’s more accurately called a “despicable tactic”) that if he makes an outrageous assertion with sufficient confidence and an air of invincibility, his interlocutor will assume he’s correct and will walk away.

    His outrageous assertion here was “Do you recall thanking Thommo for his claim that I was stalking you (because I replied to your comments)? You expressed your gratitude for this claim by him,”
    Whatever happened to that little “gotcha” moment?
    It disappeared, now hidden away in some dark recess that I don’t even want to think about. Or more likely, now shredded, no longer important as it once was, as it’s been exposed as yet another fabrication.
    Habitual lying requires as a basic skill, a bloody good memory.
    AC is not up to the job.

    But we can see a pattern emerging here.
    Anyone who calls AC to account for his compulsive fabrications and various other manipulations of the truth, must be prepared to relive every past comment, because AC will present a distorted version of “you stated” as being absolutely accurate.