The Chris Hedges Report podcast with Julian Assange's brother, Gabriel Shipton, on his film Ithaka about Julian's prolonged torture and slow motion execution
The Chris Hedges Report podcast with Julian Assange's brother, Gabriel Shipton, on his film Ithaka about Julian's prolonged torture and slow motion execution
This is 100% true, and the utterly supine toothlessness of the Australian government also should be noted.
Their own citizen is unlawfully abducted and tortured and they do nothing but cower and cheer on the kidnappers. I've seen whipped dogs with more self-respect.
The Australian government was overthrown in 1975 by MI6 and the CIA as John Pilger wrote in 2014:
"This article is more than 8 years old
"The British-American coup that ended Australian independence
by John Pilger
In 1975 prime minister Gough Whitlam, who has died this week, dared to try to assert his country’s autonomy. The CIA and MI6 made sure he paid the price."
In my opinion, to charge of espionage a foreign publisher who lives in another country and from there reports on our crimes is a demonstration of how low we have descended. The espionage charge should be rather directed to our president and previous president and VP who kept unprotected top secret documents in their homes .
Odyseus's trip from Troy to his home in Ithaca seems to offer the best analogy in literature to Assange's ordeal. And yet it could be ended by the stroke of a pen, if Biden would only drop the prosecution/persecution.
Interesting that Chris Hedges spotlights a poet, C.P. Cavafy that Donald Trump also spotlighted.
Somewhere I saw mention that Trump intended to pardon Assange but Republcans informed him that iif he did, they would vote with Democrats to impeach him, thereby ending any possibility of him running for president in 2024..
If the source you mention about Trump's intention of pardoning Mr. Assange was the truth, I only wished he had proceed with his plan. It would have freed an honest and innocent publisher and it would has freed us from his nasty presidency.
The overwhelming message one recieves from the persecution of Assange is powerlessness. That no matter your nationality or the vagaries of legal systems, if you reside anywhere within the "Western" sphere of influence, if you dare to unveil the realities of so-called realpolitik with any kind of impact, and do so beyond the corrupting influence of existing power structures, you will be tortured without mercy. Your life is forfeit.
How could another nation effectively abduct and imprison someone for so many years, with so little legal justification? More importantly, where does it end? It's a sobering portent.
True but Assange has been demonized by both parties from the beginning. From Democracy Now: "In December, 2010, two months after release of the Collateral Murder video, then-Vice President Joe Biden, appearing on NBC, said Assange was “closer to being a hi-tech terrorist than the Pentagon papers.” Biden was referring to the 1971 classified document release by Daniel Ellsberg, which revealed years of Pentagon lies about U.S. involvement in the war in Vietnam."
Whoever has colonized should not be surprised to find himself colonized in turn.
Whoever destroys the identity of another does not strengthen his own but makes it more vulnerable, more threatened still, in a world which has lost a little more of its diversity.”
“The money power preys on the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.”
Much has been made of the extrajudicial aspects of Julian Assange's charges: particularly with regard to his alleged violation of the American espionage Act of 1917 while being an Australian citizen. It doesn't matter what nationality Julian Assange is in terms of violating the Act. This repeated fallacy, IMO, clouds the main issue of the specious nature of the charge. Chris, himself, repeats this fallacy in his interview. The Act has to do with whether one was spying and whether that spying added a foreign power. That's it. This, In my opinion (IMO) should be the focus of fighting the charge.
It has yet to be proven that Julian Assange was spying (that was done by Bradly Manning of the U.S. Army -- a crime for which he was convicted, served a partial sentence, and then pardoned by the same administration that prosecuted him--that should tell you something in itself). Further, there has been no evidence whatsoever that Julian Assange himself was spying or abetting spying operations, nor was the information (revelation of U.S. war crimes) aiding or abetting a foreign adversary. Therefore, the tenents of of the American Espionage Act of 1917 were not met in order to merit the charge. In fact, they were never met for the charge against Bradley Manning. Why? Because airing the dirty laundry of a country taints that countries image universally, not specifically to the advantage of a particular nation. That, IMO, was the purpose of Bradly Manning leaking the evidence of U.S. war crimes to the press. The U.S. simply didn't like it...and is attempting illegal retribution. Further, I believe the reason for the retribution coming in the form of Espionage Act violation charges is simply because the alleged perpetrator has no right to present a legal defense to the charge beyond whether they were accurately identified as the perpetrator of the crime. In other words, there is no possible legal defense and, thus, this is the ultimate charge for which the prosecution cannot be held accountable for a miscarriage of justice. IMO, this principle applies to the prosecution of Edward Snowden as well--and is the singular reason he has no intention of presenting himself before a shame court proceeding. These three, separate cases of Espionage Act charge, all involving the extrajudicial nature of the Espionage Act, illustrate its erroneous and ever growing use and should call for a closer examination and possible repeal of this wild west, vigilante styled "law". IMO, the best course of action in order to avoid continued misuse of this law is for every U.S. citizen to urge their congressional representatives to repeal the Espionage Act of 1917 and ask that the law be rewritten to allow for a reasonable legal defense. Nothing short of the validity of the U.S. Bill of Rights depends on it.
This case has shown the absolute lawlessness of the US and UK and this nullification of legal process beyond using it as punishment.
This is a call to the world to rise up against the lawless and unethical abuse of power.
This is 100% true, and the utterly supine toothlessness of the Australian government also should be noted.
Their own citizen is unlawfully abducted and tortured and they do nothing but cower and cheer on the kidnappers. I've seen whipped dogs with more self-respect.
The Australian government was overthrown in 1975 by MI6 and the CIA as John Pilger wrote in 2014:
"This article is more than 8 years old
"The British-American coup that ended Australian independence
by John Pilger
In 1975 prime minister Gough Whitlam, who has died this week, dared to try to assert his country’s autonomy. The CIA and MI6 made sure he paid the price."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence
I am aware of the 1975 coup. Almost 50 years later and the Australian government still not dare speak up, lest Master jerk the leash.
Yes, they are lap dogs of the US in the preparation for war with China.
Another white settler colony aligned with the largest fascist country in the world.
One last note: Nugen Hand Bank was part of the overthrow of the government in Australia.
Michael Hand was Nugen's partner and a drug dealer and agent of the CIA.
He escaped using a phony beard and flew to where?
The US.
He was found by Australia 60 Minutes living in Idaho.
Here is one site
https://www.thedailybeast.com/found-after-35-years-cias-fugitive-banker
There is a site with the actual confrontation video from 60 Minutes Australia.
But Michael Hand, a known murderer, drug dealer, agent for the CIA is living free from worries in Idaho along with Mark Furman.
In my opinion, to charge of espionage a foreign publisher who lives in another country and from there reports on our crimes is a demonstration of how low we have descended. The espionage charge should be rather directed to our president and previous president and VP who kept unprotected top secret documents in their homes .
Moral arguments are meaningless to sociopaths, about as effective as quoting Bible verses to an armed robber.
Reward and punishment are the only language that they understand.
Odyseus's trip from Troy to his home in Ithaca seems to offer the best analogy in literature to Assange's ordeal. And yet it could be ended by the stroke of a pen, if Biden would only drop the prosecution/persecution.
Interesting that Chris Hedges spotlights a poet, C.P. Cavafy that Donald Trump also spotlighted.
Somewhere I saw mention that Trump intended to pardon Assange but Republcans informed him that iif he did, they would vote with Democrats to impeach him, thereby ending any possibility of him running for president in 2024..
If the source you mention about Trump's intention of pardoning Mr. Assange was the truth, I only wished he had proceed with his plan. It would have freed an honest and innocent publisher and it would has freed us from his nasty presidency.
The overwhelming message one recieves from the persecution of Assange is powerlessness. That no matter your nationality or the vagaries of legal systems, if you reside anywhere within the "Western" sphere of influence, if you dare to unveil the realities of so-called realpolitik with any kind of impact, and do so beyond the corrupting influence of existing power structures, you will be tortured without mercy. Your life is forfeit.
How could another nation effectively abduct and imprison someone for so many years, with so little legal justification? More importantly, where does it end? It's a sobering portent.
Seems pretty speculative to me, considering that it was Trump and his man Pompeo who originally began prosecution of Assange.
According to Chris' article, Assange's persecution pre-dates Trump by several years.
True but Assange has been demonized by both parties from the beginning. From Democracy Now: "In December, 2010, two months after release of the Collateral Murder video, then-Vice President Joe Biden, appearing on NBC, said Assange was “closer to being a hi-tech terrorist than the Pentagon papers.” Biden was referring to the 1971 classified document release by Daniel Ellsberg, which revealed years of Pentagon lies about U.S. involvement in the war in Vietnam."
"We are familiar with the Master-Slave dialectic:
The two roles ineluctably get switched.
Whoever has colonized should not be surprised to find himself colonized in turn.
Whoever destroys the identity of another does not strengthen his own but makes it more vulnerable, more threatened still, in a world which has lost a little more of its diversity.”
“The money power preys on the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.”
---- Abraham Lincoln
Much has been made of the extrajudicial aspects of Julian Assange's charges: particularly with regard to his alleged violation of the American espionage Act of 1917 while being an Australian citizen. It doesn't matter what nationality Julian Assange is in terms of violating the Act. This repeated fallacy, IMO, clouds the main issue of the specious nature of the charge. Chris, himself, repeats this fallacy in his interview. The Act has to do with whether one was spying and whether that spying added a foreign power. That's it. This, In my opinion (IMO) should be the focus of fighting the charge.
It has yet to be proven that Julian Assange was spying (that was done by Bradly Manning of the U.S. Army -- a crime for which he was convicted, served a partial sentence, and then pardoned by the same administration that prosecuted him--that should tell you something in itself). Further, there has been no evidence whatsoever that Julian Assange himself was spying or abetting spying operations, nor was the information (revelation of U.S. war crimes) aiding or abetting a foreign adversary. Therefore, the tenents of of the American Espionage Act of 1917 were not met in order to merit the charge. In fact, they were never met for the charge against Bradley Manning. Why? Because airing the dirty laundry of a country taints that countries image universally, not specifically to the advantage of a particular nation. That, IMO, was the purpose of Bradly Manning leaking the evidence of U.S. war crimes to the press. The U.S. simply didn't like it...and is attempting illegal retribution. Further, I believe the reason for the retribution coming in the form of Espionage Act violation charges is simply because the alleged perpetrator has no right to present a legal defense to the charge beyond whether they were accurately identified as the perpetrator of the crime. In other words, there is no possible legal defense and, thus, this is the ultimate charge for which the prosecution cannot be held accountable for a miscarriage of justice. IMO, this principle applies to the prosecution of Edward Snowden as well--and is the singular reason he has no intention of presenting himself before a shame court proceeding. These three, separate cases of Espionage Act charge, all involving the extrajudicial nature of the Espionage Act, illustrate its erroneous and ever growing use and should call for a closer examination and possible repeal of this wild west, vigilante styled "law". IMO, the best course of action in order to avoid continued misuse of this law is for every U.S. citizen to urge their congressional representatives to repeal the Espionage Act of 1917 and ask that the law be rewritten to allow for a reasonable legal defense. Nothing short of the validity of the U.S. Bill of Rights depends on it.