Re: what matters? -- Re: Superseding indictment of Julian Assange as of 6/24/2020
Thank you so much. Our enemies are our allies, over here. Nonapproval is an indicator of efficiency in finding the shared fight. On Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 1:20 PM Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:36:54PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 03:53:01PM -0400, John Young wrote: > > > Assange will be sacrificed and discarded by journalists once no longer > useful. > > > This is a long-standing practice to assure official protection and > privilege. > > > Assange once advocated this warning but was eventully coopted by > journalists > > > who joined his team and pushed the outreach to duplicitous journalism. > > > > > > Braying about threat to journalism by Assange's prosecution is a > deception op > > > conducted in cooperation with authorities. Snowden's promoters have > admitted > > > consulting with USG on what to publish, what to redact, what to > withhold. > > > Barton Gellman describes his following this CYA standard procedure in > Dark > > > Mirror. > > > > > > WikiLeaks burned sources with loose security, incoherent management, > Julian's > > > vanity and opportunism, thinking he could use cohorts for his purpose > without > > > penalty. The indictment outlines the parties he enlisted, quite a few > likely > > > to have decided to cooperate, like Sabu, the "Teenager," maybe > Appelbaum, > > > others pseudonymed. > > > > > > Those he has manipulated will turn against him under pressure from > prosecutors > > > against them, their families and friends. Same happened to Manning, > Swartz, > > > kirakou, Hammond, long list of others. > > > > > > Snowden will eventually be handed over to USG by those he came to > trust the > > > most. Trust wears thin over time and goosed by planted suspicions and > doubts, > > > ambition, need for income. And fans are notoriously fickle, don't give > a shit > > > after the excitement wanes, smears are spread, bots and media > countermesures > > > are unleashed, rewards are offered like Greenwald's "irresistables" > > > undergirding The Intercept. > > > > > > And there is always the AP option for terminating JA. Treachery of > supporters > > > is too. > > > > > > Much true here. > > > > True men of principle do not suffer greatly for vainglorious ends. > Though some may get caught up in the superficial, we should feel sorry for > them on that count, whilst at the same time upholding principles worthy. > > > > Manning may have procured her relief from her "double jeopardy" with a > (temp) non-disclosure, yet she remains vigilant to a tee in not "being a > dog and knifing Assange" for her own physical freedom - the loyalty of a > champion, and for the right foundation of righteous principle, so a huge > and gracious -thank you- to Manning! > > > > Assange had things to learn on his journey it appears - are any of us > exempt from such? Let's not shoot the messenger. Let's take a leaf from > Manning's book of grace and loyalty - if we asked her, would she hesitate > to say "punch up, not down" ? > > > > Assange was part of a team, and as incoherent and flawed as it may have > been, that team achieved massive wins - never forget that the results, from > a broader perspective have shaken the foundations of empire, with its > relentless revenge mission against Assange still in full swing to this day > after so many years. > > > > If as you say, Assange 'has manipulated' people on his Wikileaks > journey, just how many more years would -you- keep him locked up in Maxi, > how many more years from now (of Assange in jail), depriving his children > of their father, do you personally say that Assange ought be kept in the > slammer in order to mete out sufficient "justic" in your mind? > > > > This is a serious and real question to you John (no matter that we are > not the judiciary prosecuting him) - what be your position on the actual > pennance Assange, as you imply, ought pay? > > > > Yes there are always many options - perhaps we can help to spread the > word of caution, of loyalty, remind folks that ultimate dignity is that in > our own mirrored eyes, before our maker and with none between ... > > > John perhaps the following will resonate. > > This battle some of us have been in is not "merely against empire," it is > a battle for justice, truth, transparency, agency, righteousness, and in > too many cases, for life itself (the evils of Barack "Drone-Bama" come to > mind for example). "We fight not against men ..." > > In present times, when a supporter of such actually worthy goals goes in > to bat, to support, he may well be surprised to find that "a little genuine > support for a good cause" ends up locating him in a battle royale - in fact > battle after battle after night of the living dead battle! Some of us have > experienced this in wrenching, Soul purifying (hopefully) clarity. > > And when we appear to battle against "bleedingly obvious" stupidity and > uncoordination, incoherency and so many flaws it rips tears from our h
what matters? -- Re: Superseding indictment of Julian Assange as of 6/24/2020
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:36:54PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 03:53:01PM -0400, John Young wrote: > > Assange will be sacrificed and discarded by journalists once no longer > > useful. > > This is a long-standing practice to assure official protection and > > privilege. > > Assange once advocated this warning but was eventully coopted by journalists > > who joined his team and pushed the outreach to duplicitous journalism. > > > > Braying about threat to journalism by Assange's prosecution is a deception > > op > > conducted in cooperation with authorities. Snowden's promoters have admitted > > consulting with USG on what to publish, what to redact, what to withhold. > > Barton Gellman describes his following this CYA standard procedure in Dark > > Mirror. > > > > WikiLeaks burned sources with loose security, incoherent management, > > Julian's > > vanity and opportunism, thinking he could use cohorts for his purpose > > without > > penalty. The indictment outlines the parties he enlisted, quite a few likely > > to have decided to cooperate, like Sabu, the "Teenager," maybe Appelbaum, > > others pseudonymed. > > > > Those he has manipulated will turn against him under pressure from > > prosecutors > > against them, their families and friends. Same happened to Manning, Swartz, > > kirakou, Hammond, long list of others. > > > > Snowden will eventually be handed over to USG by those he came to trust the > > most. Trust wears thin over time and goosed by planted suspicions and > > doubts, > > ambition, need for income. And fans are notoriously fickle, don't give a > > shit > > after the excitement wanes, smears are spread, bots and media countermesures > > are unleashed, rewards are offered like Greenwald's "irresistables" > > undergirding The Intercept. > > > > And there is always the AP option for terminating JA. Treachery of > > supporters > > is too. > > > Much true here. > > True men of principle do not suffer greatly for vainglorious ends. Though > some may get caught up in the superficial, we should feel sorry for them on > that count, whilst at the same time upholding principles worthy. > > Manning may have procured her relief from her "double jeopardy" with a (temp) > non-disclosure, yet she remains vigilant to a tee in not "being a dog and > knifing Assange" for her own physical freedom - the loyalty of a champion, > and for the right foundation of righteous principle, so a huge and gracious > -thank you- to Manning! > > Assange had things to learn on his journey it appears - are any of us exempt > from such? Let's not shoot the messenger. Let's take a leaf from Manning's > book of grace and loyalty - if we asked her, would she hesitate to say "punch > up, not down" ? > > Assange was part of a team, and as incoherent and flawed as it may have been, > that team achieved massive wins - never forget that the results, from a > broader perspective have shaken the foundations of empire, with its > relentless revenge mission against Assange still in full swing to this day > after so many years. > > If as you say, Assange 'has manipulated' people on his Wikileaks journey, > just how many more years would -you- keep him locked up in Maxi, how many > more years from now (of Assange in jail), depriving his children of their > father, do you personally say that Assange ought be kept in the slammer in > order to mete out sufficient "justic" in your mind? > > This is a serious and real question to you John (no matter that we are not > the judiciary prosecuting him) - what be your position on the actual pennance > Assange, as you imply, ought pay? > > Yes there are always many options - perhaps we can help to spread the word of > caution, of loyalty, remind folks that ultimate dignity is that in our own > mirrored eyes, before our maker and with none between ... John perhaps the following will resonate. This battle some of us have been in is not "merely against empire," it is a battle for justice, truth, transparency, agency, righteousness, and in too many cases, for life itself (the evils of Barack "Drone-Bama" come to mind for example). "We fight not against men ..." In present times, when a supporter of such actually worthy goals goes in to bat, to support, he may well be surprised to find that "a little genuine support for a good cause" ends up locating him in a battle royale - in fact battle after battle after night of the living dead battle! Some of us have experienced this in wrenching, Soul purifying (hopefully) clarity. And when we appear to battle against "bleedingly obvious" stupidity and uncoordination, incoherency and so many flaws it rips tears from our hearts and eyes, literally, we are too often left desperatery wondering, should we plead to the Gods? Are we doing something wrong in helping? Why do every 5 steps forward seem to result in 4, 5 or 6 steps backwards? Am I able to continue with even tiny st
Re: Superseding indictment of Julian Assange as of 6/24/2020
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 07:08:59PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote: > > > > > New Allegations Assert Assange Conspired With “Anonymous” Affiliated > > Hackers, > > hilarious, considering that 'anonymous' is the CIA... Rumour has it that amongst the NatSec "pro"s there is even one non-CIA anonymous "hacker" in existence ... somewhere..
Re: Superseding indictment of Julian Assange as of 6/24/2020
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 03:53:01PM -0400, John Young wrote: > Assange will be sacrificed and discarded by journalists once no longer useful. > This is a long-standing practice to assure official protection and privilege. > Assange once advocated this warning but was eventully coopted by journalists > who joined his team and pushed the outreach to duplicitous journalism. > > Braying about threat to journalism by Assange's prosecution is a deception op > conducted in cooperation with authorities. Snowden's promoters have admitted > consulting with USG on what to publish, what to redact, what to withhold. > Barton Gellman describes his following this CYA standard procedure in Dark > Mirror. > > WikiLeaks burned sources with loose security, incoherent management, Julian's > vanity and opportunism, thinking he could use cohorts for his purpose without > penalty. The indictment outlines the parties he enlisted, quite a few likely > to have decided to cooperate, like Sabu, the "Teenager," maybe Appelbaum, > others pseudonymed. > > Those he has manipulated will turn against him under pressure from prosecutors > against them, their families and friends. Same happened to Manning, Swartz, > kirakou, Hammond, long list of others. > > Snowden will eventually be handed over to USG by those he came to trust the > most. Trust wears thin over time and goosed by planted suspicions and doubts, > ambition, need for income. And fans are notoriously fickle, don't give a shit > after the excitement wanes, smears are spread, bots and media countermesures > are unleashed, rewards are offered like Greenwald's "irresistables" > undergirding The Intercept. > > And there is always the AP option for terminating JA. Treachery of supporters > is too. Much true here. True men of principle do not suffer greatly for vainglorious ends. Though some may get caught up in the superficial, we should feel sorry for them on that count, whilst at the same time upholding principles worthy. Manning may have procured her relief from her "double jeopardy" with a (temp) non-disclosure, yet she remains vigilant to a tee in not "being a dog and knifing Assange" for her own physical freedom - the loyalty of a champion, and for the right foundation of righteous principle, so a huge and gracious -thank you- to Manning! Assange had things to learn on his journey it appears - are any of us exempt from such? Let's not shoot the messenger. Let's take a leaf from Manning's book of grace and loyalty - if we asked her, would she hesitate to say "punch up, not down" ? Assange was part of a team, and as incoherent and flawed as it may have been, that team achieved massive wins - never forget that the results, from a broader perspective have shaken the foundations of empire, with its relentless revenge mission against Assange still in full swing to this day after so many years. If as you say, Assange 'has manipulated' people on his Wikileaks journey, just how many more years would -you- keep him locked up in Maxi, how many more years from now (of Assange in jail), depriving his children of their father, do you personally say that Assange ought be kept in the slammer in order to mete out sufficient "justic" in your mind? This is a serious and real question to you John (no matter that we are not the judiciary prosecuting him) - what be your position on the actual pennance Assange, as you imply, ought pay? Yes there are always many options - perhaps we can help to spread the word of caution, of loyalty, remind folks that ultimate dignity is that in our own mirrored eyes, before our maker and with none between ...
Re: Superseding indictment of Julian Assange as of 6/24/2020
Assange will be sacrificed and discarded by journalists once no longer useful. This is a long-standing practice to assure official protection and privilege. Assange once advocated this warning but was eventully coopted by journalists who joined his team and pushed the outreach to duplicitous journalism. Braying about threat to journalism by Assange's prosecution is a deception op conducted in cooperation with authorities. Snowden's promoters have admitted consulting with USG on what to publish, what to redact, what to withhold. Barton Gellman describes his following this CYA standard procedure in Dark Mirror. WikiLeaks burned sources with loose security, incoherent management, Julian's vanity and opportunism, thinking he could use cohorts for his purpose without penalty. The indictment outlines the parties he enlisted, quite a few likely to have decided to cooperate, like Sabu, the "Teenager," maybe Appelbaum, others pseudonymed. Those he has manipulated will turn against him under pressure from prosecutors against them, their families and friends. Same happened to Manning, Swartz, kirakou, Hammond, long list of others. Snowden will eventually be handed over to USG by those he came to trust the most. Trust wears thin over time and goosed by planted suspicions and doubts, ambition, need for income. And fans are notoriously fickle, don't give a shit after the excitement wanes, smears are spread, bots and media countermesures are unleashed, rewards are offered like Greenwald's "irresistables" undergirding The Intercept. And there is always the AP option for terminating JA. Treachery of supporters is too.
Re: Superseding indictment of Julian Assange as of 6/24/2020. Candidates reactions as of Sept 2019.
On Thursday, June 25, 2020, 11:58:14 AM PDT, jim bell wrote: Superseding Indictment of Julian Assange 6/24/2020 [Jim Bell's comment: For nearly 20 years, I've wondered why "superseding" isn't spelled "superceding". ] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment [snip] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden [note: this is from 2010] The US vice-president, Joe Biden, today likened the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to a "hi-tech terrorist", the strongest criticism yet from the Obama administration. Biden claimed that by leaking diplomatic cables Assange had put lives at risk and made it more difficult for the US to conduct its business around the world. His description of Assange shows a level of irritation that contrasts with more sanguine comments from other senior figures in the White House, who said the leak had not done serious damage. Interviewed on NBC's Meet the Press, Biden was asked if the administration could prevent further leaks, as Assange warned last week. "We are looking at that right now. The justice department is taking a look at that," Biden said, without elaborating. The justice department is struggling to find legislation with which to prosecute Assange. "[end of quote] >From September >2019:https://shadowproof.com/2019/09/12/the-prosecution-against-julian-assange-where-presidential-candidates-stand/ "Biden, Booker, Harris, Montana Governor Steve Bullock, and former Representative Beto O’Rourke each declined to answer the specific question. “I won’t speak specifically about the Assange case—it isn’t appropriate for me to offer an opinion on an ongoing criminal prosecution that is now pending in court and about which all the details are not publicly available,” Biden stated. Biden spoke specifically in 2010 when he was part of President Barack Obama’s administration. He suggested Assange probably “conspired to get these classified documents with a member of the U.S. military” and added “that’s fundamentally different than if someone drops [documents] on your lap” and says “you’re a press person. Here’s classified material.” He even agreed with Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that Assange is much more like a “high-tech terrorist” than a journalist. "Biden wrote, “I’m not assuming in any way that Assange is in fact a journalist,” which indicates he believes he would have the authority to decide who is and is not a journalist. [snip] "Similar to Biden, Bennet said there should be a “distinction” between the press and whistleblowers who serve a public purpose and “those, like Assange, who publish classified information without regard to whether it may put American forces in danger.” [snip] "Williamson deserves credit for an answer that, unlike the other responses, incorporated some of the history of the Espionage Act. “The Espionage Act is a relic of President Woodrow Wilson’s prosecution of Eugene Debs for opposing his military frolic in the Soviet Union,” Williamson wrote. “The Act violates freedom of speech and press by criminalizing publications without proof that the disclosures were intended to and did cause material harm to the national security of the United States.” Williamson added, “The First Amendment does not permit a British-style Official Secrets Act for classified information. I would drop the Espionage Act counts against Assange.” "The Obama administration transformed the Espionage Act into a de facto Official Secrets Act by using it to prosecute more leakers or whistleblowers than all previous presidential administrations combined (something which Biden ignored entirely in his answer).
Superseding indictment of Julian Assange as of 6/24/2020
Superseding Indictment of Julian Assange 6/24/2020 [Jim Bell's comment: For nearly 20 years, I've wondered why "superseding" isn't spelled "superceding". ] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEWednesday, June 24, 2020 WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Superseding Indictment New Allegations Assert Assange Conspired With “Anonymous” Affiliated Hackers, Among Others A federal grand jury returned a second superseding indictment today charging Julian P. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, with offenses that relate to Assange’s alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States. The new indictment does not add additional counts to the prior 18-count superseding indictment returned against Assange in May 2019. It does, however, broaden the scope of the conspiracy surrounding alleged computer intrusions with which Assange was previously charged. According to the charging document, Assange and others at WikiLeaks recruited and agreed with hackers to commit computer intrusions to benefit WikiLeaks." [end of partial quote] Jim Bell's comments follow:Somehow, I suspect that many the government attorneys handling this case hadn't even been born when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the "Pentagon Papers" case in 1971. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers "The Pentagon Papers, officially titled Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The papers were released by Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked on the study; they were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971.[1][2] A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers had demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress."[3] "More specifically, the papers revealed that the U.S. had secretly enlarged the scope of its actions in the Vietnam War with the bombings of nearby Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, as well as Marine Corps attacks, none of which were reported in the mainstream media.[4] For his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage, and theft of government property, but the charges were later dismissed after prosecutors investigating the Watergate scandal discovered that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg.[5][6]"[end of quote from Wikipedia] Here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States the Supreme Court ruled that it would not 'enjoin' the New York Times from publishing its articles. >From later in this wikipedia article: Concurring opinions[edit] Justice Hugo Black wrote an opinion that elaborated on his view of the absolute superiority of the First Amendment: [T]he injunction against The New York Times should have been vacated without oral argument when the cases were first presented... . [E]very moment's continuance of the injunctions ... amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment. ... The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. ... [W]e are asked to hold that ... the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws ... abridging freedom of the press in the name of 'national security.' ... To find that the President has 'inherent power' to halt the publication of news ... would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make 'secure.' ... The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security... . The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by
