Julian Assange

The Washington Establishment Seems Pretty Happy About Julian Assange's Arrest

The WikiLeaks founder has few if any defenders in Congress.

|

The bipartisan consensus following WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's arrest Thursday morning was that justice is finally being served. Few, if any, politicians defended Assange or suggested that it might be wrong to prosecute him.

British police arrested Assange, who had been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London after Ecuadorian officials reportedly got tired of harboring him. Federal prosecutors in the U.S. are now trying to extradite Assange so he can face a "charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified U.S. government computer," according to a Department of Justice press release.

The response from elected officials in Washington, D.C., was almost universally celebratory. While President Donald Trump simply said he "know[s] nothing about WikiLeaks," plenty of Republican and Democratic members of Congress praised Assange's arrest.

"I'm glad to see the wheels of justice are finally turning when it comes to Julian Assange," tweeted Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "In my book, he has NEVER been a hero."

Lawmakers pointed to Assange's involvement in leaking thousands of Democratic National Committee emails prior to the 2016 presidential election. Assange has been accused of working with the Russian government to release the messages.

"Whatever Julian Assange's intentions were for WikiLeaks, what he's become is a direct participant in Russian efforts to weaken the West and undermine American security," added one of Graham's Democratic colleagues, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia. "I hope British courts will quickly transfer him to U.S. custody so he can finally get the justice he deserves."

It's worth noting, as Reason's Nick Gillespie did Thursday morning, that there are indeed valid questions about Assange's relationship with the Russian government. However, the charge he's currently facing relates to WikiLeaks' efforts to release hundreds of thousands of classified documents about the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has nothing to do with the 2016 election. Back in 2010, prosecutors say Assange helped crack a password stored on government computers in order to access classified information.

"Julian Assange has long been a wicked tool of Vladimir Putin and the Russian intelligence services. He deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison," Sen. Ben Sasse (R–Neb.) wrote on Twitter.

Sen. Cory Gardner (R–Colo.), meanwhile, praised British police for taking Assange into custody and called for Assange to be extradited so he could "answer for aiding & abetting a foreign power to undermine US democracy & laws."

Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) put it even more bluntly. "He is our property, and we can get the facts and the truth from him," Manchin said on CNN's New Day.

Republican Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.) and Richard Burr (N.C.) also criticized Assange. Cotton claimed he "endangered the lives of American troops in a time of war," and said that "since Assange is used to living inside, I'm sure he'll be prepared for federal prison."

Burr, meanwhile, said Assange "engaged in a conspiracy to steal classified information, putting millions of lives at risk all over the world."

Members of the House expressed similar sentiments. Rep. Eliot Engel (D–N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called Assange "a tool of Vladimir Putin and the Russian intelligence service," and expressed hope that he'll be extradited to the U.S. to "finally face justice."

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D–Fla.), referred to WikiLeaks as "a menace to American national security" and said Assange's arrest "is an important development and a condition precedent for justice to prevail in this matter.

Perhaps just as notable as the widespread cheering of Assange's arrest was the initial silence from advocates for government transparency and critics of U.S. intervention abroad.

Libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), for instance, suggested in August that Assange could be given immunity if he testified before Congress about the DNC leaks. Reason reached out to Paul's office for comment on Assange's arrest, but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii), a 2020 presidential candidate, said in February that "the information that has been put out [by WikiLeaks] has exposed a lot of things that have been happening that the American people were not aware of and have spurred some necessary change there." A spokesperson for Gabbard did not provide an official response to Assange's arrest prior to publication.

Several hours after publication of this article, Gabbard said on CNN that WikiLeaks and Assange have "informed the American people about actions that were taking place that they should be aware of."

"What's happening here is unfortunately…some form of retaliation coming from the government," she added.

Reason also reached out to the offices of Reps. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) and Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), as well as Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah). None of them provided a response.

The widespread criticism of Assange and the silence of some lawmakers highlights the bipartisan consensus that Assange is a criminal who deserves to be locked up. This perception can be dangerous because it ignores the fact that the information WikiLeaks has released, particularly in regard to America's actions abroad, has shone a light on important secrets that regular citizens otherwise wouldn't have known about.

It's easy to dunk on Assange, but it's important we remember his actions have, in fact, helped erode government secrecy and shined a bright light on the violent excesses of the American government.

This post has been updated with President Trump's Thursday comments on WikiLeaks, as well as Rep. Gabbard's remarks on CNN.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

113 responses to “The Washington Establishment Seems Pretty Happy About Julian Assange's Arrest

  1. >>>Few, if any, politicians defended Assange or suggested that it might be wrong to prosecute him.

    because they’re all guilty too.

    1. I basically make about $6,000-$8,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it?

      HERE? http://www.Theprocoin.com

    2. If the politicians think his arrest is a good thing, it’s obviously a bad thing.

      1. Let’s see if any of the so-called stalwarts of liberty have the balls to stand up for Assange. I don’t expect much from Rand, but maybe Massie or Amash will say something.

        1. I don’t know why you have to knock Rand. The guy takes more positions in opposition to Trump and his own party than any other politician in the Senate

          1. While Assange may have published ill-gotten information, Paul should have cheered the subsequent exposure of just how corrupt the political system is, including colluding cable news networks. The fact that he didn’t makes one wonder if he is also hiding skeletons he doesn’t want exposed.

            1. >>>Paul should have cheered the subsequent exposure of just how corrupt the political system is, including colluding cable news networks

              yes.

          2. Rand Paul did and he is so far the only senator to speak out against his prosecution. Amash, as usual, is consulting with his funders before saying anything

    3. Quoth the eternal Samuel Clemens:

      There are many Senators whom I hold in a certain respect and would not think of declining to meet socially, if I believed it was the will of God. We have lately sent a United States Senator to the penitentiary, but I am quite well aware that of those who have escaped this promotion there are several who are in some regards guiltless of crime–not guiltless of all crimes, for that cannot be said of any United States Senator, I think, but guiltless of some kinds of crime.

      1. ha exactly. “escaped this promotion” hilarious.

        1. Outside of Shakespeare, that’s one of the most carefully crafted slams in the history of the English language.

  2. It is terribly odd that if you offend the sensibilities of all factions of the the political class, no politician will like you.

    Did you seriously think that any in DC would think Assange and Wikileaks should be respected for what they have done? They do not share your values.

    1. Politicians are people who have never produced anything of value in their lives.

  3. “It’s worth noting, as Reason’s Nick Gillespie did Thursday morning, that there are indeed valid questions about Assange’s relationship with the Russian government.”

    This mention by Gillespie is why there is bipartisan consensus in support of this. Russia Fever Dreaming paid dividends.

    Keep accepting the narrative at face value, though.

    1. Now checkout how the “brave defenders of the First Amendment” (and totally not propagandists who just happen to behalf an awful lot like propagandists) have been jubilant about Assange’s arrest.

      An actual threat to the First Amendment by this president (not mean words that constantly riles up the propaganda class) and the propagandists go about propagandizing.

      1. Bradley Manning is the one who deserved jail time and plenty of it. Julian not so…

    2. What could those questions possibly be? Suppose Assange is a paid Russian agent. What difference would that make? Would the Gilespie think differently about the things that were leaked via wikileaks? I can’t see why.

    3. Lol, I knew you would latch onto this one sentence from the article. You really have a two track mind.

      1. Do you not see the connection between pretending as if Wikileaks is a nefarious Russian front and the bipartisan praise for Assange’s arrest? You feel this need to politicize the Russia episode rather than identifying it for what it is.

  4. Our dear Louis Le Trump remarked that he does not know this man.

    1. I bet he and Putin had breakfast just last week. The walls are closing in!

      1. Speaking of fevers. Give it up.

        1. I. Want. To. Believe.

          1. You’re a fucking idiot. My comment had nothing to do with Russia. You bought it up. You’re obsessed with it. It’s so obvious and weird. Are you even an American?

            1. “Are you even an American?”

              Obviously not, comrade. If one does not support conspiracy theories meant to worsen relations with a nuclear power then clearly he is not a true ‘merican.

              1. It’s amazing how feminized progressive men stuff a sock in their pants and get all Rambo suddenly about Russia and Wikileaks.

                1. It’s people who make a show of masculinity who are the insecure ones.

              2. You think this about starting a war with Putin? That’s exactly how its framed on state TV in Russia. Let me clue you in on something. Putin invaded Ukraine. Putin invaded Georgia. Putin is waging war on democracy around the world. We don’t need to make shit up about Putin.

                1. If you want to stop Putin, quit embracing progressivism, which just helps people like him. Quit being the enemy within.

                  1. I respect your opinion and I’ll give it some thought.

        2. Speaking of fevers. Give it up.

          Said the Fever King.

          1. The NSA, FBI and CIA say Russia hacked and stole the emails and used Wikileaks to disseminate the information. Wikileaks decided to reveal the information at the worst possible time for Clinton presumably with the intention to impact the election. That ain’t my imagination. This bullshit about Seth Rich, murder and false flag is a fever dream. Fuck both of you.

            1. It’s fucking hilarious how you people suddenly think those organizations are above reproach.

              Over the last twenty years Assange has given me more reason to trust his word than the alphabet soup has. No conspiracy theories necessary.

              1. Did I say above reproach? The Mueller report was supposed to investigate the damn thing. Your distrust is a good reason Americans why need to see the evidence for themselves. Mueller indicted the Russians who hacked. Barry says he’ll redact anything pertaining to ongoing investigations or trials so may not see that part of the report. I hope the fucking thing is released. Trump alone has that authority.

                1. They already said it’s being released next week. This isn’t in question.

                  1. I know. I’m an excitable mfer and so are you. We have that in common.

                2. Ordinary Person|4.11.19 @ 3:03PM|#
                  “…The Mueller report was supposed to investigate the damn thing…”

                  Stuff your conspiracy bullshit up your ass, and quit pestering the adults.

                  1. Go fuck your wife Sevo. I’ll go play golf.

                    1. Ordinary Person|4.11.19 @ 3:24PM|#
                      “Go fuck your wife Sevo. I’ll go play golf.”

                      Oh, how………………
                      juvenile.
                      Fuck off, you patheitic piece of shit.

            2. Ordinary Person|4.11.19 @ 2:36PM|#
              “The NSA, FBI and CIA say Russia hacked and stole the emails and used Wikileaks to disseminate the information….”

              Stuff your conspiracry bullshit up your ass, and quit pestering the adults.

            3. The NSA, FBI and CIA say Russia hacked and stole the emails and used Wikileaks to disseminate the information.

              They weren’t “hacked” or “stolen.” Podesta fell for a spearphishing mail that wouldn’t fool a 10-year-old. He literally gave his email account credentials to hackers because he was an idiot.

              Wikileaks decided to reveal the information at the worst possible time for Clinton presumably with the intention to impact the election.

              Yes, it’s called “campaign tactics.” Are you as apoplectic about Team Clinton cheating like fuckin’ gypsies to beat Sanders in the primaries as you are about Assange?

    2. Wisely he should stay away from this and let the courts decide .. I predict he will be acquitted

  5. Cotton claimed he “endangered the lives of American troops in a time of war,”

    I remember hearing this claim many times. Has it ever been proven? Serious question.

    1. I don’t recall any war being declared.

      1. It was the forever time when force was authorized

      2. We have always been at war with Terrorism.

    2. aren’t all American troops’ lives endangered in a time of war?

      1. when you disclose sources and methods you unnecessarily but assets at risk. I don’t know all of what Bradley disclosed but if someone died because of it someone should pay.

  6. Michael Tracey
    ?
    “Cannot adequately express my burning contempt for media hacks and Twitter charlatans who spent 3 years pretending to care about Trump’s attacks on press freedoms — by which they mostly meant his sarcastic quips to Jim Acosta — but cheer the arrest of Assange. Disgusting frauds”

    Where’s CNN with their snarky chryons when it actually matters? An actual assault on the First Amendment by this president and instead they are cheering him on.

    1. Did Assange help Manning hack into the computers?

      1. Probably not since the charge is conspiracy.

        1. I hope justice prevails. I have no confidence it will though.

          1. If Assange is found not guilty because the government can’t prove the case, is that justice prevailing?

            1. It wouldn’t bother me. Justice would be an asteroid slamming into this planet so maybe justice is not something I’m interested in.

              1. You poor, pathetic loser.

              2. “”I hope justice prevails.””
                “”maybe justice is not something I’m interested in.””

                This shit writes itself.

                Or

                “”Justice would be an asteroid slamming into this planet “”
                “”I hope justice prevails.””

              3. “Justice would be an asteroid slamming into this planet”

                Progressives truly feel this way, yet ask us to put them in charge and give them ever more power.

              4. Holy shit.

              5. I can’t believe Ordinary Person wants to kill ALL the baby seals.

        2. Wouldn’t a conspiracy charge mean, at minimum, foreknowledge if not outright assistance?

      2. I doubt little cupcake Manning did it all himself.

    2. Goes to show there is only one Nixon-law-subsidized Kleptocracy. This is one of those moments when looters from “both” sides of the aisle unite to burn an outsider at the stake–after convicting him in their courts.

      1. “Bipartisanship” always means “bend over”

        1. The two great examples of bipartisanism is war and renaming post offices after politicians.

          1. I think unsustainable social welfare programs and prohibitions deserve at least honorable mention.

        2. “Bipartisanism” means Democrats pull back the left buttcheek while Republicans pull back the right one.

  7. “He is our property, and we can get the facts and the truth from him,”

    I am kind of impressed with Manchin here, what a summation of an ethos!

    1. I can almost hear them chanting, “USA! USA! USA!”

  8. Gangs of robbers absolutely hate a snitch.

  9. I love journalists and will defend them until my dying breath. As will most Americans. But sorry I have little sympathy for Assange. There are several reasons I feel this way. First of all, tricking a mentally ill malcontent into stealing classified docs and publishing them is not ‘journalism’. Journalism requires going out into the field and getting evidence yourself. It is more than just publishing government accounts. As for the importance of his leaks, remember that Daniel Ellsberg always lamented that the Pentagon Papers did little to sway public sentiment about the war. (And yes I defend WaPo on publishing the material, because they vetted and analyzed it and didn’t publish it carelessly.) This has nothing to do with politics for me. I am actually a fellow Trump supporter.

    1. First of all, tricking a mentally ill malcontent into stealing classified docs and publishing them is not ‘journalism’.

      If that is what he did in the Manning case, then I totally agree with you. This really comes down to just what the facts are and what he did and did not do.

      1. the “publishing” part makes it journalism if he kept it to himself or sold it to Canada it’s just espionage?

      2. “This really comes down to just what the facts are and what he did and did not do.”

        On that I have to concur.

    2. What you just said is that you defend “propagandists”, not “journalists”

      1. Journalists are heroes and I admire them for their bravery. But sometimes their job requires them to investigate war crimes instead of just being a stenographer for the government.

        1. “But sometimes their job requires them to investigate war crimes instead of just being a stenographer for the government.”

          Which they never do and that’s why Wikileaks was so important. If the CIA ran it’s own newspaper, how much different would it really be from the NYT’s?

          1. “If the CIA ran it’s own newspaper, how much different would it really be from the NYT’s?”

            How different is WaPo from NYT?
            There’s your answer.

    3. Is this an excuse for what Manning did? If so I still think Manning needs more hard time. Not Julian

  10. Pretty much left my surprised face in the drawer.
    This guy thumbed his nose at ‘teh authoritahies’, and they don’t like that.

  11. Only an idiot would defend this guy and wikileaks. Thus is not a first amendment issue in any rational interpretation.

    1. Truthteller1|4.11.19 @ 4:21PM|#
      “Only an idiot would defend this guy and wikileaks.”

      Sarc or abysmal stupidity?

  12. Sen. Cory Gardner (R?Colo.) He’s a Republican??? Who’d of thunk it!

    That guy’s the leading candidate to replace John McCain as head of the Senate RINO committee. Talked a great talk running for Rep, was OK as a Rep, but he gets in the Senate and all of a sudden he’s Mr. Bipartisan Moderate Squish, Jr.

    Fuck him.

    1. yes I agree

  13. So as Assange is nominated for the Nobel Prize again this year, it will be kinda awkward if he wins, especially after that Khashoggi incident.

    Wouldn’t put it past the Norse to make it happen just to make Trump look bad.

    1. That would actually give some meaning to the Nobel Peace Prize, so, no, it’s not going to happen.

  14. A spokesperson for Gabbard did not provide an official response to Assange’s arrest prior to publication. Reason also reached out to the offices of Reps. Justin Amash (R?Mich.) and Thomas Massie (R?Ky.), as well as Sen. Mike Lee (R?Utah). None of them provided a response

    That’s quite a display of bravery from a foursome that in other circumstances would present a substantial risk of injury to anyone caught between any of them and a microphone.

    1. Lol!

      Wait, you said something funny??? Are you higher than usual on paint fumes?

    2. yeah funny.

  15. +1 Seyton for linking the court filing

    Actual charge:
    Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password hash that Manning got from a computer system, that would have allowed him greater access.
    Manning gave the hash to Assange.
    Cracking the password “would have allowed…”.
    Assange communicated to Manning a request for more information on the password, saying he had had “no luck so far” in cracking it.

    So apparently, Assange *didn’t* actually crack the hash. It’s unclear that he even attempted to do so.

    Not that I think the law really matters, as they’ll screw Assange as much as they want to, but I wonder how accurately they’re characterizing “the agreement”.

    Are you engaged in a conspiracy if a guy asks for something you don’t intend to give, you don’t even attempt to give it, but you string him along a little not contradicting his requests to let him think you plan on helping him, so that he keeps giving you things you want?

    1. >>> if a guy asks for something you don’t intend to give, you don’t even attempt to give it, but you string him along a little not contradicting his requests to let him think you plan on helping him, so that he keeps giving you things you want?

      dating –> marriage.

    2. “Are you engaged in a conspiracy if a guy asks for something you don’t intend to give, you don’t even attempt to give it, but you string him along a little not contradicting his requests to let him think you plan on helping him, so that he keeps giving you things you want?”

      Ultimately a question for a jury, since it is your word that you ‘didn’t intend’ to do what you otherwise said you intended to do. They could believe you, and let you off. Or they could believe you but, since your counterpart did actively and purposefully participate in what he thought was intended, still find you guilty of conspiracy. Mainly because there really was a conspiracy.

  16. Establishments don’t like loose cannons. That’s for sure.

  17. Sen. Joe Manchin (D?W.Va.) put it even more bluntly. “He is our property…”

    Is America still in the business of owning people?

    I thought that ended back in 1865?

    1. Manchin’s a Democrat. They’ve never really given that up.

      1. Now that’s funny.

  18. I basically make about $6,000-$8,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it?

    HERE? http://xurl.es/Reason43

  19. Wikileaks ACTUALLY spoke truth to power, went against pub and dem narrative alike. Not surprising the establishment pubs and dems wanted Assange taken-down.

  20. Lon Ball The authors and the commentators in the attached video avoid or fail to put transparency or “forced transparency” perspective relative to the loss of privacy and civilian spying. There is much less consternation about Wikileaks and Assange simply because of tectonic changes in communications technology.

    Look at assessment of Assange’s work in terms of equal access to information. Is equal access to information, for citizens and for their own ‘democratic’ government, a logical part of 1st Amendment guarantees? It clearly is. ‘Informed public is essential for democracy’, Jefferson. Invoking “National Security” is just a game in these days of hegemonic Globalism bent on domination of the world. It can be more effectively argued that transparency defuses war more than it nurtures war.

    Government, through new technology as well as Patriot/terrorism deep state legislation, has attained unprecedented invasive digital power to monitor civilian activity. Do civilians lose ‘diplomatic latitude” in equal measure to what governments lose as a result of digital science applications? All secrets are made more difficult. Good or bad; it is fallout and sociopolitical impact due to changes in tool tradition; axiomatic anthropology. Assange is not to blame, integrity in journalism demands the reporter to be anarchist as slave to objectivity.

    Julian Assange has helped to level the information playing field even as he has decried the loss of personal privacy.

  21. The biggest challenge now for real democracy and fair international relations is the weakness in international law that allows governments and US Department of State and US courts police power to arrest and prosecute non-US citizens for violations of its domestic laws. The elimination of international law in favour of relative military and kangaroo diplomacy is a travesty and miscarriage of US Constitution. Are we facing, for example, the prospects of taxation of foreigners and loss of old protective treaties that disallow double taxation for individuals and corporations? The coming King Charles of England will be able to tax US citizens without representation? Under what pretext should Teresa May be able to extradite Australian citizen Assange to USA in response to Constitutionally questionable US law? Assange deserves unmitigated public support against prosecution for exercising free speech.

    1. Hank is that you?

  22. From Flores, FRN: “The troublesome introduction of pre-crime prevention is necessarily a product of the techno-industrial leviathan which we face in our every day lives. It forces conscientious objectors to the war upon our lives, to respond not by acquiescence, but by resistance based upon the principles of non-aggression. It means that each of us willing to make a difference must become Political Soldiers, as the Yellow Vests have shown and are showing.
    This brings us to an age old truth ? people are only responsible for their own words and advocacy, not what others do with their own misunderstandings, and less what third parties still will make unfounded accusations about.”

    I took this out of context of the article it was written, but it is totally relevant to the Wikipedia issues. The worst thing we can say about Assange is that he is suspected to be a card carrying Libertarian. These politicians are mostly lawyers; did they never hear the priciple of presumption of innocence before they lock the Singsing doors behind the white head of reason?

  23. Many years ago, after Assanges exile, I called in to a radio talk show where the panel was discussing whether Assange was a hero or a traitor.

    I said he was a hero because he shared the information equally with everyone, not giving any side the advantage.

    On the panel was an editor of a large neocon financial newspaper. He said, “information is power and I want the power on our side”.

    A few years later, the public were no longer invited to call in and the talk show is being hosted by the same editor.

    1. The editor wants the ability to selectively distribute news to the ignorant public at large – of course, it’s “for their own good”.

  24. Rather ironic they want the head of Assange for publishing the classified information but let Private Manning go the government employee who stole it and released it.

    Did they ever hear about the Pentagon Papers?

    1. “”Rather ironic they want the head of Assange for publishing the classified information””

      The charges are not related to publishing. If Assange did what the government claims, he assisted in hacking into a government system. The government claims to have proof via text messages that he helped Manning crack a password. The freedom of the press is not the freedom to hack government computers.

      Hopefully he will get a fair trial.

  25. Rather a bigger deal may be the indictment of Greg Craig, former White House counsel to Obama, for being an unregistered lobbyist for Ukraine. This is an offshoot of the Mueller investigation.

    I am an old broken record on the subject, often recounting here how the “Ukrainian” natural gas company
    Burisma (with hdqts on Cyprus and in Kiev) profitably sell gas to Germany which is starving for energy because green energy policies there have shut down coal and nuclear facilities.

    The problem may be this: does Burisma’s gas really originate in the Ukraine? It’s gas producing fields are in the Eastern region, the part controlled by pro-Russian elements. Ukraine has always had to bolster its own production with Russian gas just for its own needs. Germany needed to avoid appearing to buy gas directly from Moscow because it was supposed to be honoring sanctions at the time

    Hunter Biden is somehow on the board of Burisma. In 2016 when Ukrainian President Poroshenko tried to investigate who really controls Burisma, Joe Biden forced Poroshenko to fire his chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin and cease the investigation. Biden threatened cut off of all U.S. loans.

    Come on, inheritors of the Mueller leads, there is some real Russian collusion afoot. You can find it!

  26. As if we need more reasons to distrust politicians in office.

  27. as Elizabeth replied I’m amazed that a mom can earn $7438 in four weeks on the computer. did you see this site………………………. http://www.geosalary.com

  28. Poor Julian Assange .
    “Cassandra was cursed to utter prophecies that were true but that no one believed.”
    He tried to let us read it for ourselves. we are too simple minded to understand .
    What happened to her ? will we be raped ?

  29. Private Manning took the classified information out of a secure facility and was set free but they want to prosecute the publisher? Have they ever heard of the Pentagon Papers and the ruling regarding the publishing of same?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.