On Wednesday, July 14, 2021, 06:51:33 AM PDT, professor rat <pro2...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >The Jim Bell Project operating in US jurisdiction is entirely in keeping with >the last part of
>the AP essay - the part all media commentary ignores completely. No reason to cast any >doubt on Jims bona fides there. The problem with him now though is his support for a > known fascist - Julian Rand Paul Assmange. With all due respect, I have to ask what you mean by "his support". I definitely DON'T 'support' the US Federal Government's trying to put Assange into prison for doing what I understand Assange did. Keep in mind that during the time frame of 2009-early-2012, I was mostly still in prison, only with access to newspapers and magazines. So, it's likely that during that time frame people came to conclusions about Assange based on material I never saw. I believe that Assange had been acting essentially as a journalist. Perhaps unconventionally, by the standards of the 1990's and before, but nevertheless quite legitimately. Perhaps some people objected that he had published classified (secret) information, but my memory includes the "Pentagon Papers" case from 1971, including Daniel Ellsberg and the New York Times. Generally, my position is that if somebody leaks things that piss off governments, I consider that a positive step. I don't know if Assange made mistakes, or "did everything right". In the spirit of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", I would find it very hard to oppose those leaks. Further, I was quite happy that Hitlery Clinton was subject to the leaks that were published and thus amplified by Assange. And that was true regardless of where he actually got the material leaked: Through some anonymous upload mechanism, from Russia? From a leak by an insider in the DNC? From other people who had access to the same information? During my stay in prison, I learned a great deal of American Federal law. Later, since Assange was (and still is) being victimized in relation to such laws, a few years ago I decided to look at the charging documents online, and to figure out if there were any flaws present. It turns out, perhaps not surprisingly, that it was alnost all "flaw" and virtually no legitimate charging. What was I supposed to do then? Simple, I analyzed what Assange had been charged with, and I declared it to be bogus, and I explained why. I even (eventually) sent this material to Jennifer Robinson, Assange's barrister. (No response, but I didn't really expect any.) So, I've done this to thwart the US Federal Government's attempts to further victimize him. Where was the discussion where people concluded that Assange was a "fascist"? Maybe I just wasn't paying attention.
