Julian Assange bad shape, can't walk, can't speak

[jimnyc]

And that story which I just wrote in the title is a bunch of bullshit, and now it's proven on video. Here's his torture, I believe the torture is him getting his room painted if I hear correctly? Rough times for a guy on deaths door. OR some will now claim he made a miraculous recovery.

---

Footage of Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison Released by Ruptly

Ruptly has released footage of Julian Assange inside the maximum security prison where he is currently being detained.

The footage comes one day after The Gateway Pundit broke an exclusive interview with an inmate who had provided us with photos of the WikiLeaks founder from inside the prison.

The footage shows Assange and another inmate chatting while walking around the highest security prison in the United Kingdom. It is immediately clear that Assange has lost a significant amount of weight since this reporter last visited him in March.

Some of the photos published by Gateway appear to be screenshots from this video. They feature Assange prior to his illness and being moved to the prison’s hospital wing last month, according to the inmate who provided them. We have not been able to verify if Assange is aware of the existence of the photographs or videos.

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...sed-by-ruptly/

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I don't really know what to think of all this really. Is he a bad guy? Did he himself actually do any hacking to accumulate any of the things he leaked? Is it wrong to blow the whistle?

I'd say this about that. If he actually engaged in hacking, that's a federal offense. But if he didn't and the information he leaked was simply embarrassing to some, then so what? But if it was classified information or even higher, no matter how he got his hands on it, he's in deep shit and deserves what's coming to him.

[jimnyc]

I don't really know what to think of all this really. Is he a bad guy? Did he himself actually do any hacking to accumulate any of the things he leaked? Is it wrong to blow the whistle?

I'd say this about that. If he actually engaged in hacking, that's a federal offense. But if he didn't and the information he leaked was simply embarrassing to some, then so what? But if it was classified information or even higher, no matter how he got his hands on it, he's in deep shit and deserves what's coming to him.

He released a lot of HIGHLY confidential information, and some that exposed names of operatives and other things that could potentially place lives in danger.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

He released a lot of HIGHLY confidential information, and some that exposed names of operatives and other things that could potentially place lives in danger.

Well, he's in deep shit then far as I'm concerned. What did he think would happen?

[Drummond]

He released a lot of HIGHLY confidential information, and some that exposed names of operatives and other things that could potentially place lives in danger.

Assange is another example of a radical figure, with Left leanings, who enjoys notoriety mixed in with attacking those who represent something he's ideologically opposed to.

One of his dearest friends and staunch supporters is a fellow Australian, 'journalist' John Pilger ... an extremist Leftie known for his anti-Western 'reports'. He backs what Assange did to the hilt.

An example of Pilger's anti-Western garbage:

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/...-w-john-pilger

NATO likes to present itself as a force for peace and stability in the world. What is your assessment of the strategic role of NATO during the Cold War?

NATO was, is, an American invention designed to impose American power on Europe. The Alliance achieved this during the Cold War and successfully spread the illusion - long debunked in declassified files - that Russia was a threat to all we hold dear. Today, Nato exists as a provocateur to post-Soviet Russia, with its undeclared American goal of breaking up the Russian Federation. Some of the Europeans running NATO's war bureaucracy are as zealous as the Americans, such as the secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, a rabid propagandist.

Or, from Pilger's own website:

http://johnpilger.com/articles/getti...e-untold-story

Had Assange not sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he would have been on his way to the kind of American torture pit Chelsea Manning had to endure.

This prospect was obscured by the grim farce played out in Sweden. "It's a laughing stock," said James Catlin, one of Assange's Australian lawyers. "It is as if they make it up as they go along".

It may have seemed that way, but there was always serious purpose. In 2008, a secret Pentagon document prepared by the "Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch" foretold a detailed plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange personally.

The "mission" was to destroy the "trust" that was WikiLeaks' "centre of gravity". This would be achieved with threats of "exposure [and] criminal prosecution". Silencing and criminalising such an unpredictable source of truth-telling was the aim.

Perhaps this was understandable. WikiLeaks has exposed the way America dominates much of human affairs, including its epic crimes, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale, often homicidal killing of civilians and the contempt for sovereignty and international law.

The nature of Assange's support says all that needs to be said about what's truly at work. It all adds up (Assange's and Pilger's efforts, both) to a concerted effort to do as much journalistic damage to America and the West as can be contrived. It's all propagandist poison, driven by a hatred having its roots in pro-Left wing hatred of all that the West stands for.

[darin]

anyone with dirt on the Clintons dies.

[Noir]

Is there any information provided to indicate when this footage was taken? I think it’s relevant to know if the video is 1 day or 5 weeks old.

The nature of Assange's support says all that needs to be said about what's truly at work. It all adds up (Assange's and Pilger's efforts, both) to a concerted effort to do as much journalistic damage to America and the West as can be contrived. It's all propagandist poison, driven by a hatred having its roots in pro-Left wing hatred of all that the West stands for.

Is it propaganda to publish the truth?

[jimnyc]

Is there any information provided to indicate when this footage was taken? I think it’s relevant to know if the video is 1 day or 5 weeks old.

Yes, it's even time stamped. Of course the conspiracy may continue with some saying that can be changed and probably was - when it in fact can be changed but most likely was not. It's simply a video from the inside. Did you look at the video? Or assuming that it may be altered?

It's on the video of course but here's from a screenshot as well. It was a day old when provided and now 2 days old.

[jimnyc]

Is it propaganda to publish the truth?

Not written in that limited manner - but it's VERY easy to publish the truth/facts and tell a story in a manner in which it then is also used as propaganda.

What matters to ME, is what is published, and was it highly confidential at the time, does it give away such information, are any confidential names listed? It's one thing to be a "news" reporting agency, and entirely different if one is purposely releasing such confidential information - of which even if someone in the government/military may see jail time if such information is handled in an appropriate manner. If that included disseminating the information to the world - they would see jail.

[Drummond]

Is there any information provided to indicate when this footage was taken? I think it’s relevant to know if the video is 1 day or 5 weeks old.



Is it propaganda to publish the truth?

Propaganda is invariably bound up with falsehood, to make the effort to believe the propaganda instead of the truth.

Then again, propaganda can also be a means by which preferred beliefs or allegiances are directed.

I don't know to what extent Assange lied, or, shall we say, 'peddled truth' [I'd guess he did some of both, or maybe, he took truths out of their proper contexts ?]. The real point of what Assange did was to launch a purposeful attack against those political systems which he, personally, disagreed with.

Why do you think he's got the likes of Pilger supporting him to the hilt ?

More than that (and as has been pointed out) .. what he reprehensibly also did was to release a brand of information, classified FOR A REASON, that reason being to safeguard lives. Assange cared far more about the success his attacks could enjoy, than he did about lives he could have put at risk ...

.. and, isn't that classically Left wing ? 'Principle' (as it's conveniently judged to be) is ALL, and individual wellbeing is sidelined into oblivion.

[STTAB]

I don't really know what to think of all this really. Is he a bad guy? Did he himself actually do any hacking to accumulate any of the things he leaked? Is it wrong to blow the whistle?

I'd say this about that. If he actually engaged in hacking, that's a federal offense. But if he didn't and the information he leaked was simply embarrassing to some, then so what? But if it was classified information or even higher, no matter how he got his hands on it, he's in deep shit and deserves what's coming to him.

The highlighted part is FALSE . SCOTUS has already ruled that journalists absolutely have the right to print classified material that is leaked to them. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, the NYT, The Washington Post. They do it all the time, and if YOU were given some classified information and posted it on this website, that simply isn't illegal. Neither is being in possession of classified material . Imagine if it were, the President could send classified material to Jim Accosta and then have him arrested for possessing classified material LOL How you obtained the classified material matters very much. The government is trying to make the case that Assange enticed people to hack and or otherwise steal classified material, but that's a tough sell IMO

[Noir]

The highlighted part is FALSE . SCOTUS has already ruled that journalists absolutely have the right to print classified material that is leaked to them.

100% (Must spread the Rep.)

Write this in ten foot high across every court room and news broadcaster in the country, the Constitution protects *exactly* this kind of case, which is why it’s expected that the focus will be on hacking etc.

As a a side note - the word “journalist” can also give the wrong impression, and I have seen many comments and news pieces about ‘is assange really a journalist’ etc to deny him the right afforded by the constitution, ofcourse Journalist is not a defined or protected class, it is used as an offhand descriptor, and so the above quote could just read ‘SCOTUS has already ruled that people absolutely have the right to print classified material that is leaked to them’ and it would not change the meaning or intent at all.

[Drummond]

The highlighted part is FALSE . SCOTUS has already ruled that journalists absolutely have the right to print classified material that is leaked to them.

If a spy acting for a foreign power gets hold of classified material ... and that spy is an American national ... then passes that material on to the foreign power s/he is loyal to ... isn't that the classic definition of treasonous conduct ??

All that's different in your example is that the material instead 'finds its way' to journalists, who'll then - as Assange did - release it into the public domain.

Now, if you can absolutely guarantee that none of it would ever reach the eyes or consciousness of any foreign power (!!) ... you might have a case. Otherwise, of course .......

[STTAB]

If a spy acting for a foreign power gets hold of classified material ... and that spy is an American national ... then passes that material on to the foreign power s/he is loyal to ... isn't that the classic definition of treasonous conduct ??

All that's different in your example is that the material instead 'finds its way' to journalists, who'll then - as Assange did - release it into the public domain.

Now, if you can absolutely guarantee that none of it would ever reach the eyes or consciousness of any foreign power (!!) ... you might have a case. Otherwise, of course .......

Again, you are equivocally wrong.

Perhaps you've heard of the Pentagon Papers, where the Nixon Administration sued to stop the NYT and Washington Post from publishing classified documents pertaining to the Vietnam War? Yeah, well the Administration lost that lawsuit and the papers were published. Or how about the 2001 case Bartnicki v. Vopper where the Court SPECIFICALLY said they believed the phone recording was stolen but that the person who made it public didn't appear to have been involved in stealing it and so the defense won that case as well.

Like I said, Assange is scum and certainly no friend of the US even if his outfit did expose the Democrats, but that isn't the same as being criminal.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

The highlighted part is FALSE . SCOTUS has already ruled that journalists absolutely have the right to print classified material that is leaked to them. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, the NYT, The Washington Post. They do it all the time, and if YOU were given some classified information and posted it on this website, that simply isn't illegal. Neither is being in possession of classified material . Imagine if it were, the President could send classified material to Jim Accosta and then have him arrested for possessing classified material LOL How you obtained the classified material matters very much. The government is trying to make the case that Assange enticed people to hack and or otherwise steal classified material, but that's a tough sell IMO

OK... but was it "leaked to him," or did he and that tranny freak Manning hack to get it? IDK... I guess that's what we're going to find out.

And there's also the issue as to if the information this idiot released did "damage" to the security of America.