R_P wrote:

I bet he could have flown commercial non-stop London to New York

URGENT: Emergency appeal for donations to cover massive USD 520,000 debt for jet.

Julian’s travel to freedom comes at a massive cost: Julian will owe USD 520,000 which he is obligated to pay back to the Australian government for charter Flight VJ199. He was not permitted to fly commercial airlines or routes to Saipan and onward to Australia. Any contribution big or small is much appreciated.

---

"America's Biotch"

Chris Hedges: Julian Assange’s Final Appeal

---

 Lazy8 wrote:

So you are saying there is no legitimate reason for governments to keep anything private. I disagree with that. People have and will continue to die because of government leaks. It would be much easier to build or improve nuclear weapons because of government leaks. There is a legitimate purpose for open discussions within government that could be cherry-picked by other journalists to further an agenda if leaked. Happens all the time. 

They also specifically worked to hurt Hillary's campaign. That goes against what you are saying about them being a neutral party.

 haresfur wrote:
Making source documents available without editorial intervention was what made the information credible. Wikileaks doesn't spin, doesn't shield anyone from the consequences of what the documents reveal. Withholding information to help or hinder a particular political candidate would have wrecked Wikileaks' credibility. It hurt Hillary? Fine. To paraphrase Kant, if the truth would kill them, then let them die.

And they don't just reveal US secrets. They have data-dumped documents from everywhere.

A Kingly Proposal: Letter from Julian Assange to King Charles III

 R_P wrote:
 
My main trouble with Assange is that he just dumped everything into public space with no journalistic or ethical consideration that releases of some things have consequences that can't be justified. I have no trouble with Snowdon but Assange was not acting as a journalist or with any patriotic (in a broad sense of the word) intent.

I also don't have much any sympathy because he really screwed himself by not facing up to the Swedish rape charges (whether or not they were true). He didn't want to go to Sweden, supposedly because he didn't want to be extradited to the US (I doubt that is true). So he holes up in the Ecuadorian embassy for longer than he likely would have been incarcerated if found guilty of the rape charges. Turns out the Obama administration wouldn't have charged him but he helped Trump win and now faces extradition from Britain. What an utter idiot.

Julian Assange is not on trial for his personality – but here’s how the US government made you focus on it

Assange is not on trial for skateboarding in the Ecuadorian embassy, for tweeting, for calling Hillary Clinton a war hawk, or for having an unkempt beard as he was dragged into detention by British police. Assange faces extradition to the United States because he published incontrovertible proof of war crimes and abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, embarrassing the most powerful nation on Earth. Assange published hard evidence of “the ways in which the first world exploits the third”, according to whistleblower Chelsea Manning, the source of that evidence. Assange is on trial for his journalism, for his principles, not his personality.

 kurtster wrote:
 

I thought there was agreement that we shouldn't be listening to celebrities/musicians/artists? Is that not a thing any more?

and poor Tucker. He always looks like he's a combination of confused and constipated.

In case you missed this earlier this evening ...

.
 

 jahgirl8 wrote:

Aww, someone has a theory of mind. How very special.

You seem too cheerful and active after such a disaster debate.  Assange ain't no thang.

 R_P wrote:
 

Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 2

A last small incident for me to recount: having queued again from the early hours, I was at the final queue before the entrance to the public gallery, when the name was called out of Kristin Hrnafsson, editor of Wikileaks, with whom I was talking at the time. Kristin identified himself, and was told by the court official he was barred from the public gallery.

Now I was with Kristin throughout the entire proceedings the previous day, and he had done absolutely nothing amiss – he is rather a quiet gentleman. When he was called for, it was by name and by job description – they were specifically banning the editor of Wikileaks from the trial. Kristin asked why and was told it was a decision of the Court.

At this stage John Shipton, Julian’s father, announced that in this case the family members would all leave too, and they did so, walking out of the building. They and others then started tweeting the news of the family walkout. This appeared to cause some consternation among court officials, and fifteen minutes later Kristin was re-admitted. We still have no idea what lay behind this. Later in the day journalists were being briefed by officials it was simply over queue-jumping, but that seems improbable as he was removed by staff who called him by name and title, rather than had spotted him as a queue-jumper.

None of the above goes to the official matter of the case. All of the above tells you more about the draconian nature of the political show-trial which is taking place than does the charade being enacted in the body of the court. There were moments today when I got drawn in to the court process and achieved the suspension of disbelief you might do in theatre, and began thinking “Wow, this case is going well for Assange”. Then an event such as those recounted above kicks in, a coldness grips your heart, and you recall there is no jury here to be convinced. I simply do not believe that anything said or proved in the courtroom can have an impact on the final verdict of this court.

Donald Trump 'offered Julian Assange a pardon if he denied Russia link to hack'

U.S. delivers formal extradition request for Julian Assange to U.K.

The Unrelenting State