Judge confirms Assange is a bit of a git

[Stones of granite]

Im happy to sign a heroic petition to help you avoid having to pay the fine for your extended visit to McTavish & Sons Exquisite Battered Pie Emporium, its the only heroic thing a hero can do in the circumstances

Let me tell you, that I made a heroic attempt at stuffing McTavish's pies down my scraggly, although the achievement was more of a moral victory than an actual gold medal worthy one, and it remains a travesty that my heroic moral stand was so savagely undermined by one of the, no doubt CIA and MI5 trained, Blue Meanies.

[Digby]

You'd also have to wonder why out of all the people who've been hugely critical of the war in Iraq, for many different reasons, we've supposedly picked one quack journalist and subjected him to the charges we have. At most removing Assange from the picture would reduce criticism by some tiny margin, even the Mail and the Express have been critical of our war efforts in this venture (though maybe only as it was a Labour PM), and this freedom of the press to attack our executive is part of what helps keep us a free country, as opposed to say Russia, Turkey, Syria...

[BBD]

Im happy to sign a heroic petition to help you avoid having to pay the fine for your extended visit to McTavish & Sons Exquisite Battered Pie Emporium, its the only heroic thing a hero can do in the circumstances

Let me tell you, that I made a heroic attempt at stuffing McTavish's pies down my scraggly, although the achievement was more of a moral victory than an actual gold medal worthy one, and it remains a travesty that my heroic moral stand was so savagely undermined by one of the, no doubt CIA and MI5 trained, Blue Meanies.

The real hero is the waistband on your trousers

[rowan]

Revolution against injustice and defiance of corrupt authority has arrived in many forms throughout history, all of them regarded as courageous and ultimately righteous. It is arrogant and denialist to suggest that this way or that way is the proper way, and indeed only part of the problem.

Digby still refuses to accept the fact that the rape charges have long since been withdrawn and that this was done so at the bequest of the women concerned who expressed shock they were ever made in the first place and blamed the police for making them up.

The only charge he faces now is skipping bail whilst those fraudulently concocted charges remained active. The governments concerned should be charged with making false accusations, heads should roll and Assange should be compensated to the same degree he would be had he been imprisoned on rape charges for the same length of time.

What the police and those who support the persecution of Assange have done is manipulate and devalue the entire issue of rape, and this has drawn stinging criticism from anti-rape group leaders.

[BBD]

Revolution against injustice and defiance of corrupt authority has arrived in many forms throughout history, all of them regarded as courageous and ultimately righteous. It is arrogant and denialist to suggest that this way or that way is the proper way, and indeed only part of the problem.

Digby still refuses to accept the fact that the rape charges have long since been withdrawn and that this was done so at the bequest of the women concerned who expressed shock they were ever made in the first place and blamed the police for making them up.

The only charge he faces now is skipping bail whilst those fraudulently concocted charges remained active. The governments concerned should be charged with making false accusations, heads should roll and Assange should be compensated to the same degree he would be had he been imprisoned on rape charges for the same length of time.

What the police and those who support the persecution of Assange have done is manipulate and devalue the entire issue of rape, and this has drawn stinging criticism from anti-rape group leaders.

Sounds an impressive opening line, but thats not entirely true either, Im far less informed about world politics than you and even I know it doesnt stack up as a universal or compelling truth.

Whats arrogant is to bandy words around that appear to paint a picture one way when describing the actions of a man when they cower in the face of his actual actions and then try to bullshit your way out of it when called on it.
Whats denialist is to create a construct that tries to justify his behaviour ignoring significant facts and glossing over them with high sounding principles. He made his bed, he just refuses to lie in it. Doesnt sound particularly principled to me.

[Digby]

I don't actually recall if Assange was charged or whether the charging would have come at a later point in time under the Swedish system. I do acknowledge there's a statute of limitations situation and he's already hidden to so long that bizarrely he can't now have the molestation charges brought against him (why the clock counts down when he's refusing to engage in the process I don't know), and he's got another 18-24 months (?) until Sweden can't even progress the rape charge.

Why this situation could't be progressed in another manner I don't know, but if Sweden simply doesn't want to set a precedent its prosecutor will travel to a foreign embassy convenient to the person at the centre of possible charges I don't absent of further detail have a problem with that, though I'd assume prosecutors will have traveled before to undertake a Q&A session. Still, my a large margin I'd put more blame on Assange than Sweden

[rowan]

Sounds an impressive opening line, but thats not entirely true either, Im far less informed about world politics than you and even I know it doesnt stack up as a universal or compelling truth.


I'm afraid it is true. Many of history's greatest revolutionary leaders were harshly criticized in their time, and continue to be so by ignorant cowards who do not understand the circumstances of the time - or choose not to. Assange is making a courageous moral stand against the obvious persecution he faces as a result of exposing US war crimes and other government corruption. & sure you would agree that exposing war crimes and other political corruption is a highly noble cause which requires a great deal of courage. So why would you choose to insult and disparage such an individual, as though he had offended you personally, rather than praise and defend him? This seems very strange to me.

I agree etirely with your comment that it is arrogant .,, to bandy words around that appear to paint a picture one way when describing the actions of a man when they cower in the face of his actual actions and then try to bullshit your way out of it when called on it. & that is precisely what you have done; not me - as my previous comments demonstrate. & it's not me who is glossing over the fact that the charges against him were proved false, because the women concerned objected to them from the outset, and anti-rape group leaders have expressed anger over the manipulation of their cause by the authorities who did make them.

He made his bed, he just refuses to lie in it. Doesnt sound particularly principled to me.

So by your method of evaluation, Mandela deserved prison because he brought it upon himself? Martin Luther King Jr and Che Guevara deserved shooting? Patrice Lumumba and Stephen Biko deserved their brutal executions? Even Muhammad Ali deserved his imprisonment for refusing to go to Vietnam and kill the yellow man so the white man could keep the land he stole from the red man. Many a redneck accused him of cowardice, too, at the time - though not to his face, of course...

[Digby]

It's not courageous to expect to be able to run away from consequences, the courage would come from standing up and accepting them.

I don't consider he should be jailed for the release of information that shamed both the UK and US governments and military their being imo a clear public interest argument. I'm not so convinced when it comes to the blanket release of material without it being vetted that put at risk the lives of many people, okay he couldn't physically have vetted all the information but don't then release all the information, putting at risk those who worked with the US and UK in Iraq isn't courageous, it's despicable. Assange isn't all one or the other, his actions have just on the data he release been a mix, the rape charges are separate again in how one judges him overall.

[rowan]

So now we get to the crux of Digby's thought process and begin to understand why he continues to perpetuate false and slanderous accusations against an individual who has effectively been fully cleared of them. He is upset that Wikileaks revealed US war crimes and other political corruption because it embarrassed the corrupt and warmongering governments involved and may have put their own murderous troops at risk, heaven forbid! & so he thinks the courageous thing to do would've been for Assange to hand himself over to these corrupt and warmongering governments, to face fraudulently concocted charges, having already embarrassed them so. Did Mandela hand himself over willingly? Of course not. Did Guevara or Lumumba? Of course not. What a silly argument this is, that defiance of corrupt authority is cowardly unless one hands themselves over to the very corrupt agents they are defying. Assange is playing a far more prominent role in asylum than he would be in a US torture dungeon, that's for sure.

[BBD]

Sounds an impressive opening line, but thats not entirely true either, Im far less informed about world politics than you and even I know it doesnt stack up as a universal or compelling truth.


I'm afraid it is true. Many of history's greatest revolutionary leaders were harshly criticized in their time, and continue to be so by ignorant cowards who do not understand the circumstances of the time - or choose not to. Assange is making a courageous moral stand against the obvious persecution he faces as a result of exposing US war crimes and other government corruption. & sure you would agree that exposing war crimes and other political corruption is a highly noble cause which requires a great deal of courage. So why would you choose to insult and disparage such an individual, as though he had offended you personally, rather than praise and defend him? This seems very strange to me.

I agree etirely with your comment that it is arrogant .,, to bandy words around that appear to paint a picture one way when describing the actions of a man when they cower in the face of his actual actions and then try to bullshit your way out of it when called on it. & that is precisely what you have done; not me - as my previous comments demonstrate. & it's not me who is glossing over the fact that the charges against him were proved false, because the women concerned objected to them from the outset, and anti-rape group leaders have expressed anger over the manipulation of their cause by the authorities who did make them.

He made his bed, he just refuses to lie in it. Doesnt sound particularly principled to me.

So by your method of evaluation, Mandela deserved prison because he brought it upon himself? Martin Luther King Jr and Che Guevara deserved shooting? Patrice Lumumba and Stephen Biko deserved their brutal executions? Even Muhammad Ali deserved his imprisonment for refusing to go to Vietnam and kill the yellow man so the white man could keep the land he stole from the red man. Many a redneck accused him of cowardice, too, at the time - though not to his face, of course...

No it isnt universally true at all. Was the Nazis attempt to seize power a justified and righteous attempt at revolution in 1923? (Best example I could think of) Given what later transpired I think you'd struggle to justify that it was a righteous attempt at a revolution. Labelling something as part of a revolution doesnt immediately and universally ascribe it a righteous category, thats clearly just nonsense.

There is something courageous when someone or a group stand up against something they view as oppressive. The examples you are trying to weave JA into are excellent examples. What makes them courageous is the fact that they did so in spite of the threat of a significant consequence.
They are willing to make a genuine sacrifice, even paying with their lives. Without a threat , it takes no courage whatsoever.

Go break one of your own windows and then go stand outside your neighbours house with a half brick. Feels different doesnt it? Why? because in one you harm no one but yourself and there is no significant consequence. In the other you have a price to pay afterwards, there would be a consequence. One would take courage to enact, the other takes no courage at all. The threat of consequence is essential to whether or not courage is an ingredient.

If you set out to make a defiant action in the knowledge that you intend to avoid the consequences then thats not courageous
If you seek to avoid the consequences of your actions by hiding in a diplomatic pocket then thats not courageous and you are defiling the genuine courage of genuine heroes and heroines by trying to paint JA with the same brush.

I haven't attempted to gloss over anything, its all there in black and white provided by you.Ive no need to include a repeat version of what you have said. What Ive done is point out that you are trying to create a grand design that doesnt stack up. And now you are throwing out a load of chaff to cover it.

[morepork]

Rowan, Digby did not make anything like the argument you are slating him with. I think western governments have a lot to answer for regarding conflict over the last 20 or so years, with Iraq being an outrage that has never been addressed. However, launching into a diabetic sugar rush and conflating the measured input from individual posters with an active promotion of war crimes is just getting tedious. Take a step back and you will see that no one is really disagreeing with the broad strokes of your narrative, but peppering it with absurd conjecture is the worst of textbook immature interweb blogging nonsense. You like Julieman Assponge. Fine, we get it.

[rowan]

peppering it with absurd conjecture is the worst of textbook immature interweb blogging nonsense.

But that's precisely what you've just done, Morepork. Feces-flinging is your specialty. Digby, meanwhile, has been making false accusations all along because, by his own admission, he objected to US war crimes and other government corruption being exposed, and in doing so he has manipulated and devalued the entire issue of rape.

[morepork]

peppering it with absurd conjecture is the worst of textbook immature interweb blogging nonsense.

But that's precisely what you've just done, Morepork. Feces-flinging is your specialty. Digby, meanwhile, has been making false accusations all along because, by his own admission, he objected to US war crimes and other government corruption being exposed, and in doing so he has manipulated and devalued the entire issue of rape.

Exhibit motherfucking A. Jesus.

[Digby]

peppering it with absurd conjecture is the worst of textbook immature interweb blogging nonsense.

But that's precisely what you've just done, Morepork. Feces-flinging is your specialty. Digby, meanwhile, has been making false accusations all along because, by his own admission, he objected to US war crimes and other government corruption being exposed, and in doing so he has manipulated and devalued the entire issue of rape.

Exhibit motherfucking A. Jesus.

That's not so much a misrepresentation of my stated opinion as a vastly different and entirely fecked up opinion, though in fairness Rowan did make me laugh with that effort.

[morepork]

peppering it with absurd conjecture is the worst of textbook immature interweb blogging nonsense.

But that's precisely what you've just done, Morepork. Feces-flinging is your specialty. Digby, meanwhile, has been making false accusations all along because, by his own admission, he objected to US war crimes and other government corruption being exposed, and in doing so he has manipulated and devalued the entire issue of rape.

Exhibit motherfucking A. Jesus.

That's not so much a misrepresentation of my stated opinion as a vastly different and entirely fecked up opinion, though in fairness Rowan did make me laugh with that effort.

You hate weemin. Monster. Coward.

[kk67]

It's more than a bit of a coincidence that all people who go public with uncomfortable truths are suddenly held to a very different set of rules and responsibility than the very people claiming to enforce them as elected representatives.

The mainstream media are loving the Facebook witchunt because they all hate Facebook for killing their industry.
Is the Cambridge Analytica use of online data worse than all the phone-tapping and garbage diving that News International were performing ?.
Zuckerberg has refused to meet our Parliamentary Committee.....Becky Brooks refused to meet the same committee.