Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cal04

(41,505 posts)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:11 PM Aug 2012

Michael Moore and Oliver Stone:WikiLeaks and Free Speech

WE have spent our careers as filmmakers making the case that the news media in the United States often fail to inform Americans about the uglier actions of our own government. We therefore have been deeply grateful for the accomplishments of WikiLeaks, and applaud Ecuador’s decision to grant diplomatic asylum to its founder, Julian Assange, who is now living in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.

Ecuador has acted in accordance with important principles of international human rights. Indeed, nothing could demonstrate the appropriateness of Ecuador’s action more than the British government’s threat to violate a sacrosanct principle of diplomatic relations and invade the embassy to arrest Mr. Assange.

Since WikiLeaks’ founding, it has revealed the “Collateral Murder” footage that shows the seemingly indiscriminate killing of Baghdad civilians by a United States Apache attack helicopter; further fine-grained detail about the true face of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; United States collusion with Yemen’s dictatorship to conceal our responsibility for bombing strikes there; the Obama administration’s pressure on other nations not to prosecute Bush-era officials for torture; and much more.

Predictably, the response from those who would prefer that Americans remain in the dark has been ferocious. Top elected leaders from both parties have called Mr. Assange a “high-tech terrorist.” And Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has demanded that he be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Most Americans, Britons and Swedes are unaware that Sweden has not formally charged Mr. Assange with any crime. Rather, it has issued a warrant for his arrest to question him about allegations of sexual assault in 2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/wikileaks-and-the-global-future-of-free-speech.html?_r=4
more at link

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

CabCurious

(954 posts)
1. Support the cause all you want, but Assange needs to go to Sweden and face rape accusations
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:13 PM
Aug 2012

Any argument to the contrary is hypocritical to everything we stand for.

Even if you believe he's being setup by CIA plants or something, you still need to support the principle of justice systems.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
2. The Swedish prosecutors need to file their case, which if they had one, they would have done
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:26 PM
Aug 2012

two years ago when Assange was in Sweden. And according to Nye herself, cases like this should be dealt with swiftly, all evidence should be taken as soon as possible. Yet she refused to do so and has been unable to say why. He was there for five weeks, she did nothing.


MM and Oliver Stone know the deal, they've been watching this phony case for two years.

If you have a case, file it. Otherwise the world will continue to view the whole thing as a means to silence Wilileaks, as promised in the CIA memo leaked to Wikileaks.

Hissyspit

(45,788 posts)
5. I support the principle of justice systems.
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:05 PM
Aug 2012

I support the principle of uncorrupted justice systems.

I support the principle of political asylum.

While I am certainly open to discussion on these and any related issues, I don't feel there is any particular need to be lectured on "everything we stand for."

 

plethoro

(594 posts)
12. I don't support a system of justice that is used as a ruse
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:28 AM
Aug 2012

to get an uncharged person in for questioning on a now stale case simply to get said person in a position to be transferred to the United States for unbridled harassment. I would bet Mother Justice would agree with me here. If one uses the law as a weapon, one must be prepared for return fire.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
6. K&R. I don't even know where to start anymore.
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:38 PM
Aug 2012

That anybody can look at this and pretend that it is about anything other than making an example of Assange for daring to annoy the people that matter...


treestar

(82,383 posts)
8. It's not a matter of free speech
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:42 PM
Aug 2012

We have free speech.

We have the ability to demand the government's records under the Freedom of information act. If they say they are classified, we can demand that.

Where do they draw the line. What of the damage the leaks did? Who decides?

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
9. Have you done a Public records request
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:44 PM
Aug 2012

I highly recomend the exercise. The reality is quite stunningly different than what you think it is.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
10. We have the ability
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:55 PM
Aug 2012

Even if it's a pain in the ass, we can do that. I wouldn't disagree that bureaucracy and court cases can be frustrating and a lengthy process. But it's better than letting some low level military guy just dump a bunch of stuff out there at will. Who knows that next time somebody won't get harmed? Some of the wikileaks leaks did cause harm.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
11. Well, given classification and the penchant for it
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:02 AM
Aug 2012

Goid luck in finding some of this in your life time.

Regardless, nobody set a young private to do this. This private was a whistle blower, which n th US we used to protect.

All this is political. And given how Manning has been treated while in custody, breaking all kinds of military standards of custody, let alone human rights, he at this time fits the exact definition of a political prisoner.

Also given how long this has taken to come to trial, speedy trials are also part of the military, it tells me evidence is not what they wish.

But going back to that we can, go for it...request records. Have fun.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
14. Yes, us policy
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:33 PM
Aug 2012

He tried to expose war crimes. Sorry if this is hard to understand.

I have seldomnly typed on Manning, but read enough on his treatment to understand that even if he were guilty as charged (which given the sweet time the court has taken, breaking all kinds of justice standards) at this time he meets the exact definition of a political prisoner.

Ths is not being done for justice, but to seed fear in every trooper in the US military. Like Assange's persecution...again, it's not criminal, it is political. I have worked with refugees...it s also chickens coming home to roost. Some of this we taught people like Batalion 100 in Central America back in the day...enjoy these chickens, they're not cute or cuddly.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Michael Moore and Oliver ...