General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Julian Assange: Hunted by America's Violent Empire
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/julian-assange-hunted-americas-violent-empire
Every once in a while, a situation arises that so completely captures the spirit of the time—in this case, the horror moving like an amoeba under the surface of our pleasant days, our absurd distractions, our seemingly serious politics—that ordinary assumptions, ordinary arguments and their limited conclusions serve only to obliterate honesty, and so any hope of grappling with the real. Such is the case of Julian Assange now.
He is the wanted man. Wanted for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings, ostensibly on sexual misconduct allegations in Sweden, but maybe not; maybe on charges of espionage or conspiracy in the United States instead; maybe to face indefinite detention, maybe torture or life in prison. It’s so hard to know… But one thing is not mysterious: the law is no more capable of delivering justice in his case today than it was for a black man alleged to have raped a white woman in the Jim Crow South.
I am not comparing the founder of WikiLeaks, a white man benefiting from not only white-skin privilege and straight-man privilege but also class and celebrity privilege, with black men on the other side of a lynch mob. This is not about the particulars of oppression; it is about the political context of law, the limits of liberal expectations and the monstrosity of the state.
Liberals have no trouble generally acknowledging that in those rape cases against black men, the reasoned application of law was impossible. It was impossible because justice was impossible, foreclosed not by the vagaries of this white jury or that bit of evidence but by the totalizing immorality of white supremacy that placed the Black Man in a separate category of human being, without common rights and expectations. A lawyer might take a case if it hadn’t been settled by the mob, but the warped conscience of white America could do nothing but warp the law and make of its rituals a sham. The Scottsboro Boys might have been innocent or they might have been guilty; it didn’t matter, because either way the result would be the same.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did I Just Type This
(77 posts)What does wikileaks have to do with racism in america?
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)You are more than just a little confused. I suggest a re-read.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)Julian Assange's position is similar to that of a Black man in the South back in the day. The system is so warped that it is not possible for him to be treated with justice.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Metaphor does not apply.
Makes me furious. He has every chance of being treated justly in mostly white Sweden. He is not in any near like position as a black man in Jim Crow America.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)It's here that he is afraid he'll be lynched. The metaphor is that a journalist in forbidden territory in the United States can expect about as much justice as a Black man could in the Jim Crow South.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)justifying rape cause hey... he is a man, boys will be boys, dna, evolution makes them.... oh and slut shame the women, ruin their reputation, she asked for it.
right?
certain men are so fuckin privileged that rape is fine cause it is only a woman. and he is so much more important than a mere woman getting justice or protecting other women from his disgusting behavior of self rights.
i guess any woman can now fear that this man feels he has the right to force them and not responsibly adhere to what a woman demands, prior to sex.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)He has been accused of rape.
He has published information that the U.S. government didn't want published.
These issues are getting conflated. I did not say, nor (pls correct me if I'm wrong) did xchrom say, that the women who accused him do not deserve justice. It's just that this thread is about the other issue. Whether he is guilty of those sex crimes or not, Assange fears that once in Sweden facing charges he will be sent to the United States and be punished without a fair trial for his journalism. I think his fear is justified.
I'm guessing here, have to guess because there is not a lot of information, that the sex crime charges are probably valid. But that is a separate issue.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)conflating shit. it is absolutely the point. and suggesting he compares to black men that DID NOT RAPE getting an unfair trial to his experience when in all likelihood he did hold down a woman to have unprotected sex, and probably did enter another woman while she slept in a one night stand cause he didnt want to wear a fuckin condom putting her health at risk and preg. against her DEMAND, is disgusting beyond words.
there were a ton of ways they could have made the point.
they choose this way to make their point
it is insulting to black mans experience in the south and to all women.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)three, the Prosecutors are still making excuses for not charging him.
Please learn something about the subject as we are tired of correcting the misinformation that for some reason continues to spread into these threads.
And who suggested this? He WAS interviewed in Sweden by the police, which he did voluntarily. He HAS been available both in Sweden where he stayed for the specific purpose of speaking to the prosecutor who for some reason, seemed unable to do so and then told him he was free to leave.
Since then, with NO legal impediment to their doing so, the Prosecutors have consistently refused to speak to him.
Explain all that if you can.
It seems they have no case from what legal experts both in Sweden and elsewhere who have studied the 'evidence' have to say. Even the women's own insane, Patriarchal lawyer admits 'we have a very weak case'.
Your comments here show a total lack of knowledge of the facts of this case, and I wonder, how did you conclude GUILT considering the LACK of evidence in this case, not to mention all the exculpatory evidence and your own complete lack of knowledge of even the bare minimum facts of this case? How do you find someone guilty who has not even been charged and without knowing any of the facts of a case? I seriously would love an answer to that question.
I sincerely hope that if he finally does get the day in court he has been trying to get, that this is not an example of the 'justice' he would receive.
Conviction based only on 'he's a man who was accused of something'. Do you even know what the allegations were, and then what they were changed to months later?
Unbelievable, no wonder women have to struggle so hard to be taken seriously when we have this kind of pre-judgement with no interest at all in whether someone may actually be innocent or without knowing a single thing about the case.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)And the US doesn't even have any case against him anyway.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)No case against him either. Cue the cries of "But that's DIFFERENT!!" if you wish, but there it is and no, it's not different. That's what America does to people it convinces itself are terrorists. Like it or not, Assange has every reason to be concerned.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)assassination or execution here in the land of the free.
I don't know about anyone else, if I heard Rep. Peter King, former Gov. Huckabee, former VP nominee, Sarah Palin among others, in the most powerful country in the world, calling for my assassination publicly, I would not feel all that secure about getting any kind of fair treatment, here or in Sweden being how willing they have been to help out the US extradite political refugees for the CIA to be taken to Egypt and tortured.
I love how cavalier people can be about other people's freedom and even their lives.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)especially the fact that the charges are for something no sane person supports. Bernays would be proud.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It matters not. Palin? She holds no office. One Rep? He's probably said as many insane things in a day that he can't keep track of all of them and has forgotten Julian long ago. The denial of this is what's amazing.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of them did, when current serving Elected officials call for the death of a Publisher and Editor of an International News Organization, it matters a lot. And there were several of them. Including Diane Feinstein who made the ridiculous demand that he should be tried under the Espionage Act. This government never condemned those illegal calls for the death of a News Publisher.
By contrast, when one loon in Canada did the same thing, he was forced to apologize.
The US has given no assurance to Assange's attorneys that those calls for their client's death by Elected US Officials 'mean nothing'. Canada did the right thing, the US did not, leaving people around the world to believe that he is in grave danger if the US ever gets their hands on him. And our record of dealing with people we accuse of terror, only confirms the grave danger he is in.
This could be settled by the US Government condemning the public statements of their elected officials, as they have been asked to do. But they have not.
Rep. King is a serving member of Congress, he is not a former member. Neither is Diane Feinstein, a conviction under the Espionage Act could carry the death penalty.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)and it matters. I'm surprised to see this on a progressive board. I can remember the fully justified howls of outrage about the crosshairs on Gabby Giffords. Doesn't matter? "Tiller the baby killer" and George Tiller dies. Doesn't matter? It mattered a hell of a lot at the time, iirc. But it's OK because it's someone you don't like?
treestar
(82,383 posts)And Gitmo takes no new prisoners.
There are no charges against him. He has no reason for any of this "concern."
He's paranoid, crazy and manipulative of his supporters.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Seriously?
The guy in the article wasn't a Muslim terrorist either. We held him without charges for 10 years. Remember that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)as your comments indicate a lack of knowledge of THIS case. If you want to expound on the subject of rape in general, that is another matter, but this is about one particular case and so far you have not addressed any of the issues surrounding this particular case. Without any knowledge of the facts of the case, which I have to assume due to your comments, you have apparently come to a conclusion.
There is nothing more damaging to women than to use Rape as a political tool a fact that has been stated about this particular case by many Women's Rights Organizations and people who have vast experience in dealing with the way women who have been raped are treated such as Naomi Wolf.
Until you demonstrate that you have some minimal knowledge of the facts of this case, I will go with The Womens Rights Groups and Naomi Wolf.
treestar
(82,383 posts)His supporters have a lot of nerve suggesting that he'd be treated like a black man in the Jim Crow south in any legal system to which he could ever be exposed.
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)the rabid right-wing versus leftists who are willing to place themselves in danger in order to bring about change. Some of the more extreme on the right were calling for Assange to be assassinated by the CIA. Sounds similar to a "lynch mob" mentality.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of a journalist who published some inconvenient facts, and no one is disputing the facts, that does sound pretty chilling to me.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)needs to pay attention to the reports from Australia:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/cables-reveal-australia-us-focus-on-assange-20120527-1zd8a.html
The diplomats dismiss Mr Assange's claims that the US investigation is politically motivated retribution for WikiLeaks' publication of leaked US military and diplomatic reports. They instead highlight US prosecutors' claims that the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning, dealt directly with Mr Assange and ''data-mined'' secret US databases ''guided by WikiLeaks' list of 'most wanted' leaks''.
...
The released embassy cables do not contain any references to representations made by Australian diplomats to US officials concerning ''proper'' extradition processes, only a request in 2010 that Australia be forewarned so as to better manage the public relations and media aspects.
The cables do reveal Mr Assange's complaints about numerous death threats were regarded by the embassy as part of a media campaign ''to set the scene for a possible political exception to extradition''.
So the FOIA documents show investigation into conspiracy and espionage where Assange was working together with and guiding Manning. We know how seriously the government is treating Manning. Also this report seems to show that they contemplate the ramifications of extradition to the US.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I can't decide if it is because no one wants to believe their own government would persecute a multi-award winning Journalist this way, which is hard to accept I know, or what. I see no other purpose in denying facts that are provable.
George II
(67,782 posts)
Iggo
(47,558 posts)It'll change your life.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)without being extradited, undergoing rendition or being killed? OK
reorg
(3,317 posts)under a constant barrage of slander while donations to Wikileaks were blocked and the movements of volunteers monitored.
Were it not for the progressive forces in South America, he would be in prison right now, waiting to be extradited to some US torture chamber.
hack89
(39,171 posts)why is he not in GITMO or in a grave?
reorg
(3,317 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)
doesn't look too good, though, for the time being.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they are more than happy to let the Swedes deal with Assange.
Putting Assange on trial is a no win situation - if found guilty you create a martyr, if found innocent you create a hero. Since he has not broken any US laws, I can't imagine President Obama risking acquittal.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)facts. The US has a Grand Jury sitting for more than 18 months to try to get an indictment against Julian Assange under the draconian Espionage Act. This has been confirmed by his US Attorney who has documents to prove it.
We have also heard elected officials in this country call him a terrorist, and the world knows what that means by now.
Several US elected officials have demanded that the he be tried and convicted and executed, and others have outright called for his assassination.
One of those officials is Dianne Feinstein to her shame. She joins the rabid rightwing teabagger, Rep. Peter King in those demands.
He is LOATHED by the Far Right which is to be expected, he exposed the crimes of their war criminal heroes. Which is why the Left, long wishing that our own Media would have had the guts to do that, supports him.
There is further information now that the GJ has returned an indictment revealed in emails from the Security Firm, Stratfor.
I know you will either ignore all of this the next time there is a thread on Assange and state that you 'don't think the US is interested in him' once again. And I will post the facts once again.
It would be nice if you remembered them at some point though. Because facts are facts.
To be clear, the US is VERY interested in Julian Assange despite your opinion to the contrary.
reorg
(3,317 posts)was actually a law that was passed to stop socialists from speaking out against the first World War, against those "who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; who have sought to ring the authority and good name of our Government into contempt ..." (according to Woodrow Wilson).
As some commentators have pointed out, six government whistleblowers have been charged under the Act by the Obama administration whereas from 1917 until Obama came into office, only three people had ever been charged in this way.
I agree with the previous poster that this is not really in the interest of the American people. The Obama administration should defend constitutional freedoms instead of appeasing proponents of the security state. But I suspect Obama's powers are limited in this respect.
http://www.thenation.com/article/169860/protecting-torturers-prosecuting-whistleblowers?rel=emailnation#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#World_War_I
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)rescinded a long time ago. That's the problem with these laws that are passed when the country is in a state of fear. They are easy to pass, but so hard to get rid of.
And I agree and could not be more disappointed, that this administration has had such a dismal record on Civil Liberties. One of the reasons I was so enthusiastic about Obama was because of his speeches on Civil Liberties which were so different to Bush's total disregard for what makes this country what it is.
It's hard to put together his stated positions before the election and his record since taking office on these issues.
A lot of people have become very cynical about politics over the past four years. I don't really listen anymore to what candidates say. Now I just oppose Republicans because they are more than just bad on policies, they are dangerous and have no saving graces.
hack89
(39,171 posts)in a country that is America's strongest ally and with their own history of rendition. Which certainly does not support the meme of Assange being ruthlessly hunted by a violent empire.
It is all irrelevant anyway - he will end up in Sweden eventually. His ego is too big to sit in that embassy while Wikileaks goes on without him. He is impotent now and you know that must drive him nuts.
Assange was freed on $300,000 bail, only possible because he had supporters who came up with the money. He had to surrender his passport, agree to travel restrictions, adhere to a curfew and wear an electronic tracking device. He was required to report into a local police station by 10pm each evening.
While waiting for the UK courts to arrive at the only conclusion that could have been expected from America's strongest ally: extradition.
Had the US made a concurrent request to extradite him, it would have complicated matters greatly. Most likely, additional court procedures would have prolonged the "unmolested" stay in Britain, whereas in Sweden he was going to be confined in prison even before the US made an extradition request.
I think all the state actors in this witch hunt are quite happy with where things stand right now. The Swedes don't have to embarrass themselves with following up on the absurd accusations, the Brits have complied with the requests from their allies, and the US can still pretend they don't know about anything while leaving it open when and for what they will go after him. For the time being, the main line of attack is vilification and slander through mainstream and social media, something you seem happy to participate in.
hack89
(39,171 posts)what stopped the US from simply using rendition?
And it rendition was out of the question for Britain, then why is it possible for Sweden?
reorg
(3,317 posts)Why use "extra"-legal, also known as illegal means when the pretense of legality can still be maintained.
As you already have acknowledged, the main thrust of state parties is to obstruct and intimidate potential whistleblowers and those who enable and help them.
Abductions and killings of supposed enemies in foreign countries is certainly still doable for the US, but also leads to incalculable blowback, as we have seen just recently.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the funny thing is that this will all end with a whimper and not the bang Assange wants. Sometime down the road either he or Ecuador will tire of his presence in the embassy, he will surrender and off to Sweden he will go. There is no way Assange will be able to hold the attention of the world for too much longer - something else will come along to take him off the front pages and then it becomes a matter of time.
reorg
(3,317 posts)- like the unconstitutional "Espionage Act" which made free speech illegal for government opponents.
hack89
(39,171 posts)do you see a happy ending for Assange?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the involvement of the international community and people like Michael Moore, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, Bianca Jagger among others who paid his bail, since despite the lies that he is wealthy, he could not afford it himself, he was released and kept under house arrest for two years, not free to go where he pleased, all based on ONLY allegations with no charges ever filed.
I hope you or I are never 'unmolested' that way. I like my freedom especially when I have not done anything to lose it.
Now, you are free to try move the goal posts once again .
hack89
(39,171 posts)which does not seem to be in line with being hunted by a "violent empire".
It is almost as if America was respecting international and British law.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Wikileaks where this has been explained, over and over again. Wish I had time to humor you, but those who know the facts know them, those who don't want to know the facts, will never acknowledge them.
I get that a completely free press is a threat to some people. Especially when they have become comfortable with a media that is willing to cover up war crimes etc.
hack89
(39,171 posts)do you foresee a happy ending for Assange?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Whatever US elected officials said, even if they did say such things (and I'm starting to doubt that without links) that doesn't mean the legal system will not work. Dianne Feinstein does not control the legal system.
Facts are indeed facts - the US is just not interested. Julian has not had much affect. I am sorry for those who need a hero and thought they saw one in him, but the fact is, he's a sad little paranoid fellow who is using his supporters all for nothing. All he has to do is go to Sweden and clear things up.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Assange's lawyers have the documents. Please educate yourself before making these incorrect statements. There is no doubt about this.
randome
(34,845 posts)That would show those evil, nasty Americans!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)produced the documents on the GJ that they have received. They have shown them to the media and there is simply NO DOUBT about this. And since this has all been told to you before, it is to say the least, very strange how you appear to forget so much of the facts in this case no matter how often you are presented with them.
But, you do, as I have said many times before, provide me with an opportunity to produce the facts each time you post one of your 'I don't get it even though you told me all this before' comments.
Btw, didn't you say you had no interest in this case, or am I confusing you with someone else?
randome
(34,845 posts)Publish them! It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, I have seen no proof of this!
They say they have shown them to the media. Fine, the cat is out of the bag. Have Wikileaks publish them. Until then, this is nothing more than defense attorney posturing.
I guess the entire world's media is against Assange, too, for not publishing these documents.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Thanks for proving my points about your role here, though. You never fail.
randome
(34,845 posts)I'm not even against Assange. I just think he's in the wrong here. Like Bradley Manning, he has a couple of loose screws. IMO.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)rape innocent people including children, in their own countries, are the ones with a few screws loose, more than a few actually.
Those who try to stop them from torturing people who were only holding up signs of protest in our 'new democracy' in Iraq, Bradley Manning eg, and Assange who published his leaks to try to stop the torture and murder, they are not the ones with the loose screws, not in any decent society.
I guess we have very, very different standards regarding human rights and decency. I will always support those who try to stop war crimes and the criminals who are responsible.
You are entitled to support them by slamming the heroes who risk everything in order to protect the innocents.
randome
(34,845 posts)That has nothing to do with whether or not Assange is an asshole. I think he is.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And no, I do not think we are on the same side. But I could be wrong.
treestar
(82,383 posts)No, we say he is not in the danger he claims.
What is it about this guy that turns peoples' brains to mush?
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)and he's still to hot to just disappear. Vanish him into a jail cell with a no communication order- which Sweden can do, btw- for a spell until he's not so much in people's minds, and then whisk him out of Sweden- which Sweden has done for the U.S. before, btw- and hide him away. Or just leave him locked up in Sweden, with a no-communication order and his reputation completely destroyed by a bogus sex charge. This neutralizes the enemy and serves as a warning to others.
Americans have been too influenced by Rambo. The best way to deal with an information leak by a public figure is not necessarily to kill the leaker. You have to destroy their credibility so that no one listens to the information they leaked, and make life hellish enough that others won't want to try it. Try looking up Daniel Ellsberg and what they tried to do with him.
hack89
(39,171 posts)he can't run Wikileaks out of the embassy - no way that Ecuador would be willing to assume responsibility for whatever international mess Assange is ready to create next.
He is running out of options - he can't go to Ecuador and how long do you think he can stay in the embassy before Wikileaks decides they have to move on without him?
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)good job, but he's still in the public and media eye thanks to his bolting for the Ecuador embassy. And he still has access to the public, and he's still defiant. So no, he's not neutralized completely.
hack89
(39,171 posts)which is what the US really wants.
He will end up in Sweden - he doesn't have too many other options.
The leaks have already been leaked. Removing him as head of Wikileaks does nothing to erase that.
The point now is 1) to discredit the person responsible, so that the leaked information (and any further leaks down the line) is discredited as well and 2) discourage anyone else from trying the same thing. I did tell you to Google Ellsberg. Same shit, different day.
hack89
(39,171 posts)After Assange left Bradley Manning twisting in the wind and after Manning is sent to prison for a very long time, what leaker would ever trust Assange? Assange won't and can't protect them.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)to Lamo was not the fault of Assange, for starters. IOW anyone who reads the news.
It seems like you're just looking for excuses now.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Can't have someone who challenges the Empire running around freely and give interviews on TV.
Assange has always supported Manning and defended him as an accused whistleblower. He has nothing whatsoever to do with Manning's arrest and persecution.
George II
(67,782 posts)...maybe YOU should google Ellsberg?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)...is the same as the treatment he got back in the '70s. That is where the similarity ends.
The Pentagon Papers consisted of a formal document preparted by the US Government and assembled into a logical sequence into dozens of volumes on a single issue, not merely a helter skelter group of documents, correspondence, emails, etc. (relevant or irrelevant) on a variety of non-related issues.
reorg
(3,317 posts)...
There’s no reason to believe that he would get what in past years, including my time when I was prosecuted, would pass for a fair trial or for fair treatment in this country.
So, not the same treatment, Ellsberg thinks Assange has to fear worse.
If you are not interested in the documentation of the activities of the US military and embassies during the wars in the past years, don't read it. Nobody has put you in charge of Wikileaks', the NYT or The Guardian's editorial policy. It was certainly of value and interesting for quite a lot of people, including Ellsberg.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Ellsberg thinks otherwise.
What exactly did you want me to Google?
George II
(67,782 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)I've read through many comments by Ellsberg and have actually met him and seen him speak. Which comments?
George II
(67,782 posts)“EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”
Note, he makes NO specific reference to the content or source of the documents released by Assange. He is ONLY speaking of the nature of the attacks on him and Assange.
Ellsberg also released the Pentagon Papers in a controlled manner through a responsible news organization. Assange released his through the relatively anonymous and uncontrolled environment of the internet.
Ellsberg took responsibility for the release when that happened, Assange did not.
Feel free to spin it any way you wish.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)"As part of their attempt to blacken WikiLeaks and Assange, pundit commentary over the weekend has tried to portray Assange’s exposure of classified materials as very different from — and far less laudable than — what Daniel Ellsberg did in releasing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Ellsberg strongly rejects the mantra “Pentagon Papers good; WikiLeaks material bad.” He continues: “That’s just a cover for people who don’t want to admit that they oppose any and all exposure of even the most misguided, secretive foreign policy. The truth is that EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”
Care to play again?
The modern media is a different animal than it was in 1971. Manning could not have done what Ellsberg did in the same way that Ellsberg did it. Ellsberg recognizes this.
I don't have to spin it. There it is, in Ellsberg's words.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)rabid screams of some of our elected officials to have him killed. He protected himself by making his case an International case which the world is watching.
Do you think that the demands for his murder from elected officials should be taken lightly? Nor were those rabid cries for blood condemned officially by the US Government. Why do you think they were not?
hack89
(39,171 posts)I am not sure I understand what you are talking about.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)execution. Sarah Palin, not to mention all the rabid right wingers who hate Wikileaks for exposing the Crimes of the Bush Administration.
His lawyers appealed to the US Government to stop these elected officials from calling for his death and asked for protection for him.
It was a disgrace. Funny, you've been in almost every thread on Assange, that you are not familiar with these rabid demands for the death of Julian Assange.
treestar
(82,383 posts)to black men being falsely accused of rape?
I know Julian makes people insane, but that is just way too much.
As for America, no we are not that interested. Which is surprising considering what he participated in doing to us. But after the Ellsberg case, it was determined that the publisher of leaked documents is not guilty of any crime.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i have never liked this man. i stay out of most all threads on this egomaniac con man. but this.... it is way over the line.
as the little coward hides.
and people support his right to hide and not face what he did.
as he demands that it is ok for him to put out 250k of private info and people should be cool about it
because he is some fuckin special little piece of shit.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)What utter nonsense. What did he do? Are you aware that he has not even been charged with any crime?
If you are unwilling to familiarize yourself with the facts of a case but simple rush to the conviction of a person who has never been charged with any crime, simply because he is a man and you don't like him, I'm afraid your opinions have zero credibility and they are, in my opinion, and this makes ME more angry than anything else, very, very damaging to the cause of women who were raped.
randome
(34,845 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)are a major contribution to the discussion. 
George II
(67,782 posts)"I am not comparing the founder of WikiLeaks, a white man benefiting from not only white-skin privilege and straight-man privilege but also class and celebrity privilege, with black men on the other side of a lynch mob"
Then why do you bring it up?
Some consider this guy a martyr - remember, martyrs face their fate willingly. This guy is a coward.
What an insult to every person of color who lived during the Jim Crow era. Outrageous.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Assange considers himself to be a martyr, he certainly has never indicated that. He does consider himself, and so do millions of others around the world, to being subjected to political persecution. I don't think there is much doubt about that.
Same as Daniel Ellsberg, he too did not consider himself a martyr, he did realize he would be the target of political persecution despite how right he was and he was. However, Assange in this case is what the NYT was in the Ellsberg case. They too were politically targeted. Thankfully the SC Court eventually ruled in their favor..
As they would have to do if Assange was a US citizen and his case were to go before them.
George II
(67,782 posts).......is ALMOST as bad as comparing Assange to the persecuted blacks in the south decades ago.
This entire discussion is getting ridiculous, the OP was better not being posted in the first place.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to question Ellsberg's own assessment of the similarities in these cases. But as I said, Assange/Wikileaks is, in the opinion of Ellsberg, the NYT in this case and Ellsberg is Manning, the Whistleblower.
Daniel Ellsberg is one of Wikileaks most prominent supporters.
Sorry we have to be exposed to facts we do not like sometimes. I know how inconvenient that can be. But facts are facts and it happens to all of us sooner or later.
randome
(34,845 posts)Ellsberg is wrong to support Wikileaks unconditionally and to equate it with the Pentagon Papers. He is wrong.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Wow, I'm used to you moving the goal posts around, but Ellsberg =Eastwood?
And yes, he definitely equates what Assange and Wikileaks do to the Pentagon papers.
I will take Ellsberg's opinion of these matters over yours. You haven't exactly been right about many things you choose to comment on on so many occasions. Ellsberg otoh, and Assange, published facts. No one, even those US Elected officials maniacally calling for his death, have disputed that.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)As am I. And it will go on without the ego freak Assange. He is doing damage to wikileaks. Wikileaks shouldn't be about him. Assanges ego will not allow that to happen. He is now threatening to release certain info if people do certain things. That is a complete joke. He is a joke.
reorg
(3,317 posts)to Protect Julian Assange
I congratulate Ecuador of course for standing up to the British Empire here, for insisting that they are not a British colony, and acting as a sovereign state ought to act,” said Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the secret history of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. On Thursday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Assange would be arrested if he left the embassy, saying Britain is “under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden. “[Assange] has every reason to be wary that the real intent here is to whisk him away to America where it really hasn’t been made clear what might be waiting for him."
...
Well, everything that we’ve seen supports the position of his defense team, that this is not about sexual charges in Sweden, essentially, that that’s a cover story—whatever substance there may be to that story. But the procedures that have been followed here are extraordinary: a red notice here, very unusually given, never under these circumstances, to arrest him and these heavy efforts to extradite him, after he had offered either to be questioned by the prosecutor herself or by some representative of her in the Swedish embassy or the British embassy or by British police in London, where he was, something that, by the way, is routinely done all the time, and the expense is paid for that, if necessary—all of that being refused. Why? In a situation where this man is charged with criminal charges by no country—not by Sweden, not by Britain, not by the United States, although there may in fact be a secret indictment already waiting for him in the United States, being denied or lied about right now by my country.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10959-whistleblower-daniel-ellsberg-i-congratulate-ecuador-for-standing-up-to-british-empire-to-protect-julian-assange
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)He remains one of the most popular figures in the world, more popular than most members of the British and US and Swedish Governments. It's interesting how only in the Western, Colonial states is there this kind of irrational anger, and even there, mainly on the Right.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And Manning is a hero. Assange, not so much. If you can't see the size of this guys ego, then I'm not sure what you are looking at.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)public eye.
Are you saying that being in possession of an ego is cause for political persecution?
You're not sure what I'm looking at? That should be obvious to any reasonable person. I'm looking for the rationale for the ridiculous International pursuit of one man, who up to now has not been charged with a crime, unless publishing facts is now a crime.
The effort to get him was greater than the effort to get Pinochet or Gadaffi eg. Pinochet was not held in Britain to stand trial for Genocide and torture of his own people. They released him to his own country.
So what I am looking at is the totally irrational obsession with someone has never even threatened another human being or been charged with a crime, to the point of issuing Interpol Red Alerts (for Gadaffi by comparison, it was only an Orange alert) as compared to the protection by the British Courts of a Genocidal maniac like Pinochet not so long ago, and I wonder, what is going on here?
You, apparently see only Assange's alleged ego. Do you see any other egos working in this incredible case btw?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)that he is trying to make the cause about him. It is bigger than him. That he does not understand.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)he paid these women to make allegations against him, then to be sure this was all about him, he paid someone to immediately go to the Right Wing Tabloids to make sure the World knew about this and this way he would be making things ALL ABOUT HIM.
Then he contacted someone in the US DOJ and begged them to set up a GJ to try to get an indictment against him for Espionage. His huge ego did this so that the World would be totally focused on HIM.
He also begged elected US Representatives and our rabid Right Wing Talk Show hosts to call for his assassination and or execution, BECAUSE HE WANTED IT TO BE ALL ABOUT HIM.
This is why I love these threads, it always reveals how correct Assange is in terms of his fear of getting a fair trial in this country or in any allied country which has in the past jumped when the US called.
I've seen in this thread a total conviction of a man who has not even been charged, because 'I NEVER LIKED HIM'. 'HE HAS A HUGE EGO! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
Your comment is proof positive that he is correct.
He will never get a fair trial here or in Sweden or the UK.
These comments make that absolutely clear.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"his fear of getting a fair trial in this country or in any allied country which has in the past jumped when the US called."
"I've seen in this thread a total conviction of a man who has not even been charged, because 'I NEVER LIKED HIM'. 'HE HAS A HUGE EGO! OFF WITH HIS HEAD! "
No one has called for his conviction. And I don't want his head. Or was that another reference to him being a black man in the Jim Crow South. What a disgusting comparison.
"Your comment is proof positive that he is correct. "
I am a very powerful person. Maybe my comment, whatever that comment may be, can be used in an op ed to support him. Feel free to send the comment I have made that has positively proven something to anyone you would like.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Like the racists in the South, the anti-Assange/Wikileaks campaigners of today are clearly not the sharpest tools in the shed. Which does never stop them, of course, to try and make a major contribution, be it in favor of wars and assassinations or of the persecution of "traitors" who continue to publish government secrets even while OUR president is at the helm.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)print, it is because it was not intended to be. Do not print words that come from your head, and then try to attribute them to me unless you can link to those words in any comment of mine.
This conversation is now boring to me. I have work to get done and will leave you to your continued slamming of someone who tried to stop Human Rights abuses in countries across the world, and succeeded a few times. For doing the job our media refused to do during the Bush years of crimes against humanity.
If you want to defend the Bush war criminals from being exposed, then you are supported by our Government sadly and that is your right.
Me, I want to see war criminals and economic criminals thoroughly exposed, charged, prosecuted and convicted and I thank anyone, Manning, Ellsberg, Assange, the Chinese dissidents who were a part of the foundation of Wikileaks, for doing what most of us do not have the courage to do on behalf of the tortured, the abused, the raped, the murdered people all over the world.
Assange has received many awards for that work. Manning knew that he would pay a price for trying to stop the torture he witnessed, but went ahead anyhow.
I am satisfied that my opinion on who is right and who is wrong in this story, is shared by most of the good people of the world, like Ellsberg and so many, many others.
The War Criminals have their supporters also, most of the usual suspects on the far right who have always hated exposure or even any criticism of torture and murder perpetrated by their heroes, Bush and his cabal of war criminals, but I am not one of them.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That's ok.
"If you want to defend the Bush war criminals from being exposed, then you are supported by our Government sadly and that is your right. "
You couldn't back this statement up if you tried to lie your way out of it. Kind of shows the disconnect.
"The War Criminals have their supporters also, most of the usual suspects on the far right who have always hated exposure or even any criticism of torture and murder perpetrated by their heroes, Bush and his cabal of war criminals, but I am not one of them. "
I fully agree.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Except it was not made by me. Never said anything remotely close to what is implied here.
You know the trick, make a false accusation in the form of a question, then condemn it.
I would ask you to justify the 'question' with some quotes of mine, but that would be a trick also, because you could not. So I'll leave it that.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I figured such hyperbole had to be linked to something. And in the days events a couple of nutters were trying to compare Assange to black men in the Jim Crow South. Didn't realize that it was simply a complete disconnect on your part.
Kind of funny you would even think about going there after you insinuate that I am a Bush supporter. That is when you lost credibility and went into la la land.
George II
(67,782 posts)Those who practiced civil disobedience faced their accusers and in many cases subjected themselves to false convictions. Those are among the heroes of the civil rights movement.
Assange isn't even close to that.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I don't recall either he or anyone else claiming he was engaged in Civil Disobedience. He is engaged in Journalism. Now I understand that being a real Journalist who actually publishes inconvenient truths is a dangerous enough profession these days. See the Al Jazeera Journalists targeted and killed in Iraq by the Bush gang eg, and their headquarters in both Iraq and Afghanistan also bombed.
See Ashley Banfield when she made a few comments at a relatively obscure event about what she actually saw in Afghanistan 'after the bombs fell' and what she was allowed to say on the Air as an 'embedded journalist'. They destroyed her career.
And see what was done to Dan Rather when he exposed the fact that Bush far from being a hero, went AWOL even from his safe position in the NG during the Vietnam War.
So, being targeted as a Journalist is entirely different from engaging in Civil Disobedience. Journalists publishing the truth are not supposed to be viewed as breaking any laws for the purpose of drawing attention to some injustice. They are doing a perfectly legal job.
That aside, and it does become exhausting having to constantly provide the facts regarding this case, Assange DID 'face the music' as it were, while in Sweden. He went voluntarily to the police where he was interviewed and spent more than three weeks attempting to speak to the prosecutor who consistently refused to meet with him, and then told he was free to leave.
Even after leaving he remained available to her and she continued to refuse to speak to him. She made some false claims regarding her reasons for these refusals, all of them debunked at this point. He is still available to speak to her. There is no legal impediment preventing her over the past two, going on three years, from speaking to him in London.
If she has a case, FILE IT. But as even the women's own patriarchal, politically connected attorney has admitted, 'we have a very weak case' And that was before they altered the original testimony which did not involve sexual assault charges, and in fact was dismissed by a Sr. Prosecutor.
After stalling and prevaricating for this long, unprecedented in a case like this, people are of the opinion she does not want to file to charges because there is no case.
This is not just based on the Prosecutor's constant refusals to move this case along, but on the evidence, especially the mountain of exculpatory evidence, itself.
I don't know what you mean by 'he needs to face his accusers' therefore, it appears to be the other way around, they do not want to face him. Or at least those who intervened in this case.
A CIA memo was obtained by Wikileaks shortly before these allegations occurred. They posted it on their website at the time. It was a discussion between agents on 'how to get Assange'. They settled on 'getting him involved in a Sex Scandal'.
I read that when it appeared on their site and was not surprised frankly. As the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan said after he resigned his position because of the crimes being committed by the dictator there and being ignored by his Country, 'they did the same thing to me, they tried to smear my name'.
IF they have a case, going on three years without filing it, raises obvious questions. There is NO ONE to blame for the lack of charges in this situation, BUT the Swedish Prosecutors. Assange has always been available to them.
George II
(67,782 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)issue. He has always been available to speak to the Swedish Prosecutors, they are afraid to speak to him apparently because then they would be forced to file their case, and as the world knows by now, they have no case.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He was in jail. The equivalent would be if he dodged somewhere else, got charged with rape and then used what he did to claim he can never be accused of rape ever, anywhere. And complain he had a right never to be tried. It doesn't matter what he says about Julian - why should he think Julian is above the law when he himself was not and he himself faced the music? His "support" is as wrong as what he did before was right.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)As Ellsberg has made clear so often himself:
Ellsberg = Manning. Both of them are Whistle Blowers.
Assange = The NYT. Both of them were the publishers of the leaks.
The NYT WAS attacked by the US Government. But the USSC ruled in favor of the NYT.
Assange/Wikileaks = The NYT in the Pentagon Papers Case. THAT is why the US Government is struggling so hard with making a case against an award-winning Publisher and Editor. Because they KNOW that Assange/Wikileaks = The NYT and that he is a journalist.
It's shameful that they do this again rather than addressing the facts that were revealed.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Very true. They are not even close to the same.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Manning = Ellsberg.
And I will take Ellsberg's opinion on that. He is a total supporter of both Wikileaks and Assange and has said this: All the attacks on Assange that are happening right now, were made against me also.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"Did you read my comment at all?"
Yes I did. And fully agree. Assange is no Ellsberg.
Very simple.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...has been a criminal and living on the fringe of the law since he was 16 years old.
"Assange/Wikileaks = The NYT"????? That's like saying a Pop Warner team = The Green Bay Packers!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)you throw around hyperbole such as you just did, you end up with people seeing your handle, and rolling their eyes. So to save you from a total loss of credibility I will help you out here:
Assange when he was a teenager, was a hacker. It was illegal he was caught and was given very light treatment by the judge.
That is the ONLY crime he committed and it was treated as a relatively minor issue. That was when he was a teenager, he did not 'live on the fringes'.
So, fill in the years from when he was 17-18 to when he was 39, listing the crimes you claim he committed. Then provide some information on his personal life up to the point where he became a Publisher and Editor of Wikileaks in 2006.
I am looking forward to this.
Wikileaks/Assange = The NYT in the Pentagon Papers case and:
Manning = Ellsberg.
I think he is absolutely correct and history will resolve this as it did the Ellsberg/NYT case.
George II
(67,782 posts)You agree that he was a criminal at the age of 16.
If that was the only crime he's committed, why has he been running from the law for the last five years? surely not the action of an innocent person OR emulating Daniel Ellsberg's actions.
He also had highly questionable child custody issues (although perhaps not "illegal", still "on the fringe of the law" as I stated),
Ellsberg faced his accusers bravely. History will NOT resolve this as it did the Ellberg/NYT case until he faces his accusers. From his actions over the last five years, that's not likely to happen anytime soon.
George II
(67,782 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)So you agree with Ellsberg that Manning is a hero if he has committed the act of which he is accused? The alleged violation of the unconstitutional "Espionage Act"?
Must have missed your posts where you gave expression to this view previously. Are you, like the poster you replied to claims to be, now also a (secret) supporter of Wikileaks?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)thousands of whistle blowers who have been protected by Assange and Wikileaks for six years now. Not one has ever been exposed even by accident, by them, despite threats from governments and Banks and others whose corruption was exposed by those whistle blowers and published by Wikileaks.
Manning was betrayed, by a stooge, not by Wikileaks and from their record of protecting their sources, he certainly was not and would not have been betrayed by them.
What a sad comment to make. It shows signs of desperation when people sink to the level of simply conjuring up baseless smears to attack someone with.
Wikileaks and Assange have received multiple awards for their work, Assange was on the run long before he published anything about the US, due to being threatened by some of the corrupt dictatorships and private institutions exposed by whistleblowers who he and Wikileaks protected.
You don't like Wikileaks, I get it. A lot of people are not for a completely free press especially if it exposes their own governments. Wikileaks eg, was super popular in the US before they released info on the Bush War Crimes and then threatened the Big Banks
But if you want to criticize them, do it with facts. This kind of smear tactic with no basis in fact, only affects the credibility of the author, not the target.
They are extraordinarily courageous. The Chinese dissidents, who we do not hear from as they, like Assange, are in danger because of their work with Wikeleaks, and Assange and the several thousand other members of Wikileaks were committed to do what OUR media has refused to do, publish the truth especially for them, after Tiannemen Sq and they have done that.
They have opened the door for a truly free press and despite the temper tantrums of the Ruling Class in countries who grew comfortable lying to their own people, that door is not going to close no matter what they do to Assange in order to do so.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"You do know that Manning is only one of possibly thousands of whistle blowers who have been protected by Assange and Wikileaks for six years now."
Really no explanation needed after reading this.
"You don't like Wikileaks, I get it."
Completely baseless. Wikileaks is great. That is why many dislike Assange. He is doing nothing but hurting them. Wikileaks does not equal Assange, though many not educated on the subject like to think so. And Assange himself would like people to think that way. It will continue on after he has burned all of his bridges and friendships. Maybe he can withhold some more information while he threatens others. How is that working out.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)question, you were given some facts, and this is your response. Have you any idea of the people who have risked their lives, in Kenya, Nigeria, Tunisia and elsewhere eg, by leaking information to Wikileaks people who risked death in order to expose that corruption.
What does your comment mean? Were any of those heroes who risked their lives exposed by Wikileaks? Is THAT what you are saying? Or you dismissing these people who took those risks, and the care Wikileaks took to protect them?
Do you know eg, who leaked the information on Iceland's crooked Banks and the exchanges that occurred between WL and the Bank? Did Wikileaks expose THAT courageous Whistle Blower who is directly responsible for the saving of Iceland's economy and for the arrests and prosecutions of the corrupt, criminals who crashed it?
You have revealed that you are willing to expound on a subject which you clearly know nothing about.
Thanks for at least admitting this as it gives readers an idea as to how much credibility to give to your opinions.
reorg
(3,317 posts)The Anti-Wikileaks campaigners are trying to appeal to base instincts by casting Assange as:
1. an outsider, enemy of the pack
2. someone who violates our women we need to protect
These archetypes of evil were of course also employed in the racist propaganda of the past.
... The mutation of basic rights into an imperative for belief, and of full citizens into victims, has not made women any safer, but its cultural manipulation—particularly in high-profile cases—has struck at the foundations of civil liberty in a way that may not have been anticipated.
So here is the spectacle of Assange, as yet unindicted, bearing the dual brand of Sex Offender and Terrorist, the subhuman beings of the twenty-first century. The fusing of abuse and terror in his case thus implies two victims who must be believed, the women and the state. But the women’s claims are murky, and the state is not credible.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
Robb
(39,665 posts)It sort of breaks down when you examine how that inequity was challenged in the rural south, perhaps.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"the law is no more capable of delivering justice in his case today than it was for a black man alleged to have raped a white woman in the Jim Crow South."
More like a white man who has raped a black woman in the Jim Crow South. He doesn't think he has to answer for it. That is what happens when you have a superiority complex.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)I guess that's what happens when people are incapable of comprehending the articles they are commenting on or refuse to even read them.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Your reply doesn't make sense.
Response to NCTraveler (Reply #73)
Post removed
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Entitlement. Wow. Little judgemental aren't you.
reorg
(3,317 posts)regarding the arguments put forth in the article quoted in the OP.
Instead, we have to suffer your pompous bluster, parroting over and over again the talking points handed out by certain media organisations that, after having made use and profited from Wikileaks, are covering their asses now so as not to get cut off by officials with whom they cooperate. You are a tool, plain and simple, willfully participating in the vilification and slander of someone who is putting his life on the line for making a difference. Disgusting.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... repeating the same lying PTB propaganda they use every time their ABUSES of power are exposed.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Learn to live with it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)They should not side with those who protect war criminals and torturers, and airc, we never used to.
Wikileaks has exposed the corruption of several oppressive regimes by providing a safe place for Whistle Blowers to get their stories out to the world, and for that work they have been awarded by several reputable organizations, both journalistic and human rights advocates.
Those Whistle blowers, from Kenya to the ME to China, risked their lives to get that information past the censors in their home countries knowing that if they were exposed they die.
We on the left spent the Bush years slamming our own media for covering for the crimes of the Bush regime.
Then a new kind of media emerged, which did exactly what he said we wanted our media to do, expose the crimes.
Before Wikileaks exposed the Bush war crimes, people thought they were 'pro-American' because they had not in four years, released any material on the US. They responded to those accusations by stating that they had not received anything on the US and if they did, they do what they had always done, verify its authenticity and then publish it.
When Assange revealed he had information on major Banks, all hell broke loose and suddenly the messenger came under attack complete with the CIA revealed plot to 'involve him in a sex crime'.
And suddenly we see people on the left, flip flop on their Bush era claims that they favored a free press reporting facts over the propaganda machine our MSM had become, and joined the attacks on the messengers.
That leads to the question, 'was the Left serious in their opposition to all the crimes committed by the Bush administration, or was it all just political after all?
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)This is an important issue for the government and the one percent, because it threatens to open more eyes to what our government really has become, even under a Democratic President, and how ruthless the authoritarianism can become when unflattering secrets are revealed.
ANY story that threatens to reveal the collusion between government and the one percent, and especially stories that reveal the corrupt use of government to punish and silence those who would expose their collusion, will always be urgently spun for public consumption.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)What really pisses me off, is that these scum think that they are fooling us.
WE SEE YOU.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)The files which suddenly were swept under the rug and Assange got a gig on Russia Today?
That kind of collusion?
I agree collusion should be exposed every where it happens.
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)historical materialism in favor of smug rhetorical tricks
"The law" (Wypijewski smirks) "is no more capable of delivering justice in <Assange's> case today than it was for a black man alleged to have raped a white woman in the Jim Crow South." She adds: "I am not comparing the founder of WikiLeaks .. with black men on the other side of a lynch mob." But she does make exactly that comparison, at the same time she denies it: "The Scottsboro Boys might have been innocent or they might have been guilty; it didn’t matter, because either way the result would be the same." This dishonest gambit is called apophasis -- and it never adds anything of value to a discussion
The Scottsboro defendants were nine black hobos, riding a freight through Alabama in the early spring of 1931. The youngest was twelve and none was as old as twenty. They were accused of rape and, going to trial within two weeks, all but the youngest was sentenced to death almost immediately by the jury
They were, in fact, lucky not to have been lynched soon after they disembarked the train, having been protected first by the sheriff and later by the National Guard. From 1921 to 1930, there were at least 275 lynchings in the US -- and 90% of the victims were black. It is sometimes tempting to gloss that long ugly thread of Americana, simply as the unkind treatment of a minority group by the majority -- but an examination of the class interests involved shows something else: Jim Crow was an economic system. Antebellum slavery had provided easily-identifiable underclass to exploit and had mystified the exploitation with an elaborate racial ideology. Jim Crow later retained both the underclass and the mythologies used to justify its exploitation, although legal slavery itself was replaced by other forms, such as share-cropping, debt-bondage, and prisoner chain-gang labor. Like slavery before it, Jim Crow depended on violence and unequal protection of the laws. The lynching of black Americans, always without consequence for the perpetrators, was not simply a matter of white people being unpleasant to blacks: it served a distinct purpose in the economic structure, conveying a message to the underclass that their lives simply did not count and that resistance could lead only to pain and death. The violence of the Jim Crow lynchings was a result of carefully-crafted hatred, but it was not merely a result of hatred: it was also an explosive result of the psychological tensions and contradictions required to maintain the irrational ideological views associated with the entire system of oppression
Comparisons with the Assange affair are ridiculous and become more distasteful each time Wypijewski makes such a comparison while simultaneously disavowing the comparison. If Assange's case had resembled in any way the experience of the Scottsboro Nine, he would already have been sentenced to death twice by now
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=40689
tama
(9,137 posts)you got a point there. Left has been very slow to wake up to what Club of Rome talked about few decades ago and what is happening now. Both reformists and Marxist socialists. Anarchists have been much more up to date in terms of historical materialism. Funny that.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)He should be happy. But no more wikileaking...there are laws preventing free speech there, I hear.
George II
(67,782 posts)Assange is in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK, with Sweden seeking extradition, and we have someone claiming he's being "Hunted by America's Violent Empire"?
Bizarre to say the least.