Because the CIA and the security state control mass media along with social media and all journalists and editors are actually careerists and not journalists.
Predictably, YOU're not listening. I never said that leveling the Espionage Act charges against Assange might not be part of an attack on journalism. In fact, it certainly seems they are. That STILL doesn't make Assange himself a journalist.
I also note that you ignored my "facts not in evidence" observations.
Given that, and given, speaking observations, what I do and don't observe on your profile, I'll also observe that Substack, like Facebook but unlike Twitter, has just one tool, or actually, just 1/2 of that 1 tool.
Your "observations" are useless. Either Assange is being politically persecuted for his journalism and his activities as a journalist, or he isn't. You can't have it both ways. Your new obsession with what happens to be on my profile is just further indication that you have nothing left to say beyond baseless ad hominem.
Let me also, re the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, per my other comment here that Assange goosing it removed him from the ranks of journos, if nothing else had, quote your own managing editor at Counterpunch, Andrew. St. Clair, 2019:
<blockquote>I think Julian Assange’s lowest moment was his inculcation of the Seth Rich conspiracy in some of the more credulous precincts of the Left. The strangest part of the affair is that if the preposterous Rich conspiracy had proved true, it meant that Assange would have outed his source.</blockquote>
I agree with CPJ, and Dick Tofel, formerly of Pro Publica, and others. He's not a journalist.
The CPJ, in saying he's not a journo (I remember reading their piece a couple of years ago, Andrew) explicitly said he's due full legal due process, like any other person. Which, of course, he's not getting. But, his prison treatment is itself independent of the issue of whether or not he's a journo, so raising it with the linkage to the journalism issue is to some degree a red herring.
Per the people noted above, and myself? If he was a journo pre-Seth Rich (Tofel says he wasn't ever since he incited criminal behavior by Manning, and he may be right), he certainly forfeited any claim to be a journalist after goosing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.
Total strawmanning of both me and CPJ, including ignoring my opening comment that CPJ explicitly said Assange was entitled to full due process. Freedom of speech is of course a separate clause in the First Amendment's five clauses from freedom of the press.
And, with that, I won't even bother in continued back-and-forth with you. Bye!
Assange is absolutely a journalist, and is specifically being persecuted with regard to his journalistic activities in publishing evidence of US war crimes in 2010. It has nothing to do with 2016, or the election. Your grudge has no relevance here.
Furthermore, your arbitrary distinction between Assange's professional label and his imprisonment proves that you simply don't know what you're talking about. As Craig Murray has pointed out, the US has openly admitted in court that it plans to go after journalists with the Espionage Act from here on out.
Second, I know what Craig Murray and others have said. Related? The Espionage Act can be arbitrarily applied to non-journalists as well as journalists. Therefor, your claim that this is an arbitrary distinction about Assange's professional label, re the Espionage Act, is also a red herring.
As for the 2016 election? I'm a non-duopolist leftist who didn't vote for either Clinton or Trump, so your assumption there is based on facts not in evidence!
Uh, it is not a "red herring". The US indictment is quite clear: They seek Assange's imprisonment for receiving, possessing, and publishing secret material, as well as collaborating with sources. All are activities that are basic to investigative journalism. The aim is to treat the journalist-source relationship as a criminal conspiracy against the US government. You claim to "know what Craig Murray" has said, but it's clear you haven't really listened.
Again, non-journalists could be indicted on the same charge. Yes, I know Obama decided not to file Espionage Act charges, but there were multiple considerations involved with that.
Craig Murray? Read plenty of him.
Again, as I said with my updated previous comment, that I'm a non-duopoly leftist who didn't vote for Trump or Clinton in 2016, you're assuming facts not in evidence.
Predictably, you're not listening. The core issue here is that common *journalistic activities* themselves are being criminalized by the US government as a *crime against the state*; activities that exposed their imperialist crimes against humanity. Assange unquestionably performed those activities, and now faces indefinite concrete burial in Colorado for them. The US also made clear in court that it seeks to apply these kinds of persecutions on an *international basis*. Your protestation that Assange isn't a journalist is the actual "red herring" here, because the fact of the matter here is that the US seeks to criminalize journalism itself.
Julian embarrassed the powerful, both in government and in the mainstream media. And so he's paying the price for being a real journalist who's willing to inform the powerless about the powerful and their various crimes and atrocities.
The persecution of Julian is all about intimidating other journalists. He's being crucified to deter others from following in his path. And overall it may even be working, which is obviously not good.
Because the CIA and the security state control mass media along with social media and all journalists and editors are actually careerists and not journalists.
No need to go to Harper's now.
You're welcome.
Predictably, YOU're not listening. I never said that leveling the Espionage Act charges against Assange might not be part of an attack on journalism. In fact, it certainly seems they are. That STILL doesn't make Assange himself a journalist.
I also note that you ignored my "facts not in evidence" observations.
Given that, and given, speaking observations, what I do and don't observe on your profile, I'll also observe that Substack, like Facebook but unlike Twitter, has just one tool, or actually, just 1/2 of that 1 tool.
Your "observations" are useless. Either Assange is being politically persecuted for his journalism and his activities as a journalist, or he isn't. You can't have it both ways. Your new obsession with what happens to be on my profile is just further indication that you have nothing left to say beyond baseless ad hominem.
False dilemma on the either/or. "Bye" otherwise, since one of Substack's failiings is it has just 1/2 of one tool. Your other claims? Laughable.
Yes, so "laughable" that the only move you have left is to tap out. Have fun defending the US government's political persecution of a journalist.
Let me also, re the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, per my other comment here that Assange goosing it removed him from the ranks of journos, if nothing else had, quote your own managing editor at Counterpunch, Andrew. St. Clair, 2019:
<blockquote>I think Julian Assange’s lowest moment was his inculcation of the Seth Rich conspiracy in some of the more credulous precincts of the Left. The strangest part of the affair is that if the preposterous Rich conspiracy had proved true, it meant that Assange would have outed his source.</blockquote>
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/12/roaming-charges-pate-politics-in-the-time-of-trump-and-pelosi/
I agree with CPJ, and Dick Tofel, formerly of Pro Publica, and others. He's not a journalist.
The CPJ, in saying he's not a journo (I remember reading their piece a couple of years ago, Andrew) explicitly said he's due full legal due process, like any other person. Which, of course, he's not getting. But, his prison treatment is itself independent of the issue of whether or not he's a journo, so raising it with the linkage to the journalism issue is to some degree a red herring.
Per the people noted above, and myself? If he was a journo pre-Seth Rich (Tofel says he wasn't ever since he incited criminal behavior by Manning, and he may be right), he certainly forfeited any claim to be a journalist after goosing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.
https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2019/04/is-julian-assange-journalist.html
I had no idea that freedom of speech and the press applied solely to "journalists" or to those who parroted the approved pieties.
Total strawmanning of both me and CPJ, including ignoring my opening comment that CPJ explicitly said Assange was entitled to full due process. Freedom of speech is of course a separate clause in the First Amendment's five clauses from freedom of the press.
And, with that, I won't even bother in continued back-and-forth with you. Bye!
So, whether Assange is a "journalist" is irrelevant,
Assange is absolutely a journalist, and is specifically being persecuted with regard to his journalistic activities in publishing evidence of US war crimes in 2010. It has nothing to do with 2016, or the election. Your grudge has no relevance here.
Furthermore, your arbitrary distinction between Assange's professional label and his imprisonment proves that you simply don't know what you're talking about. As Craig Murray has pointed out, the US has openly admitted in court that it plans to go after journalists with the Espionage Act from here on out.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-10/
Really? I have a grudge? News to me.
Second, I know what Craig Murray and others have said. Related? The Espionage Act can be arbitrarily applied to non-journalists as well as journalists. Therefor, your claim that this is an arbitrary distinction about Assange's professional label, re the Espionage Act, is also a red herring.
As for the 2016 election? I'm a non-duopolist leftist who didn't vote for either Clinton or Trump, so your assumption there is based on facts not in evidence!
Uh, it is not a "red herring". The US indictment is quite clear: They seek Assange's imprisonment for receiving, possessing, and publishing secret material, as well as collaborating with sources. All are activities that are basic to investigative journalism. The aim is to treat the journalist-source relationship as a criminal conspiracy against the US government. You claim to "know what Craig Murray" has said, but it's clear you haven't really listened.
Again, non-journalists could be indicted on the same charge. Yes, I know Obama decided not to file Espionage Act charges, but there were multiple considerations involved with that.
Craig Murray? Read plenty of him.
Again, as I said with my updated previous comment, that I'm a non-duopoly leftist who didn't vote for Trump or Clinton in 2016, you're assuming facts not in evidence.
Predictably, you're not listening. The core issue here is that common *journalistic activities* themselves are being criminalized by the US government as a *crime against the state*; activities that exposed their imperialist crimes against humanity. Assange unquestionably performed those activities, and now faces indefinite concrete burial in Colorado for them. The US also made clear in court that it seeks to apply these kinds of persecutions on an *international basis*. Your protestation that Assange isn't a journalist is the actual "red herring" here, because the fact of the matter here is that the US seeks to criminalize journalism itself.
Julian embarrassed the powerful, both in government and in the mainstream media. And so he's paying the price for being a real journalist who's willing to inform the powerless about the powerful and their various crimes and atrocities.
Of course, those in the government and in the mainstream media are often one and the same. Just as a revolving door exists between the military and its merchants of death, so too does a revolving door exist between government and its media liars and spinners. Caitlin Johnstone cited Jen Psaki at MSNBC as the latest example of this: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2023/02/22/free-speech-is-for-fighting-the-empire-notes-from-the-edge-of-the-narrative-matrix/
The persecution of Julian is all about intimidating other journalists. He's being crucified to deter others from following in his path. And overall it may even be working, which is obviously not good.
Thanks for everything that you do, Andrew.