Julian Assange Is Being Tortured To Death: "I'm Dying Here"
Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 3 months ago to Government
Original source:
https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-new...
"A very “sedated” Julian Assange told a friend that he’s dying on Christmas Eve. Because of Assange’s condition during the phone call, concerns about his health have mounted. His suffering amounts to torture at the hands of government.
Assange’s “crime” was publishing the truth. He gathered information, none of which was fabricated or fake and published what the government is doing to other countries and the lengths that they’ll go to enslave the masses. For that “crime”, Assange is being tortured in what can be summed up as a Gulag. The powers that shouldn’t be don’t want someone who knows the truth to live to tell it, and that’s become painfully obvious."
https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-new...
"A very “sedated” Julian Assange told a friend that he’s dying on Christmas Eve. Because of Assange’s condition during the phone call, concerns about his health have mounted. His suffering amounts to torture at the hands of government.
Assange’s “crime” was publishing the truth. He gathered information, none of which was fabricated or fake and published what the government is doing to other countries and the lengths that they’ll go to enslave the masses. For that “crime”, Assange is being tortured in what can be summed up as a Gulag. The powers that shouldn’t be don’t want someone who knows the truth to live to tell it, and that’s become painfully obvious."
Of course not.
The more truth is being told, the greater the damage.
The DS will not release him. He is too dangerous to live free.
Where would he go?
But Trump ran, at least in part, on a promise to get rid of the Deep State. And the DS, for its part, is still actively attacking him and blocking implementation of his policies. This suggests either that the promise was a lie, or that there is an active struggle going on and the DS, so far, seems to be winning it.
I'm willing to give him some benefit of doubt and assume, for now, that the DS is holding on because Democrats now (and Democrats plus RINOs during 2017-18) control the House of Representatives, thus preventing any major changes to the system by Trump. So let's do our best to give Trump a filibuster-proof majority this year. But if the DS is still strong in 2024, there may be no solution short of opening that fourth box.
If you are ever confronted by Federal investigators then before telling them anything you should immediately consult a lawyer to protect your legal rights.
You also don't have to testify against a spouse in most cases, at least if there isn't a conspiracy. Maybe the next bizarre twist will be Manning marrying Assange in the latest rationalization. A fate worse than the British torture.
If you are ever confronted by a Federal interrogation consult a lawyer immediately. Appealing to what may sound like common sense, like the fifth amendment, will get you in a lot of trouble. Legal procedures do not follow common sense, and the lawyers know how to manipulate them. You don't.
If you know you have done nothing wrong it may be tempting to talk to them to set the record straight and help, especially when they play the friendly good-cop bad-cop game. But there is too much of a history now on official abuse of the system by politically motivated, abusive officials who are out to "make a case" and not concerned with fairness and honesty.
"All actions" of the government should not be "out in the open". Military secrets are properly limited. Another example is sealed court records such as unrebutted grand jury testimony accusing innocent people.
We live in a mixed system, part free and part controlled, under which people are generally living very well compared with the rest of human history. It is not wholly evil.
Not everything the government does is wrong. This is no place to lash out with bitter, nihilistic anarchy.
Emotionally lashing out in the name of total "evil" at everything, even to the point of condoning convicted felons like Manning, is not rational and not helping anything.
I hope you live much longer than "maybe a year or so". Whatever time on earth that anyone has should be spent in pursuit of values, not the libertarian-anarchist mentality of bitter, sweeping renunciation.
In my opinion, the feds are the ones who should be investigated and punished for violations of the constitution and possible war crimes. Assange should be freed and left alone.
That appears to be the MOD in the military.
If we take several of the past events with tragic ending, the signs were always there, according to facts revealed later.
Why the military was not concerned? Maybe their tolerance level is higher than that of civilian society (although that needs a revision as well, just thinking of the school mass shooters, for example).
Observing Manning's strange behavior should have led to some kind of oversight, but hacking into secure computers was beyond what his strange behavior could predict for either his ability or future actions.
The people around him had limited ability for judgment and limited and ambiguous sense of what they were responsible to do. They are, after all, in a bureaucracy. But the criminal activity of breaking into secure computers to steal and disseminate military secrets is something that everyone understands to be wrong, including Manning, and none of his colleagues in the military knew he was doing that. His confused personal state did not justify or cause the theft committed for political purposes.
The pervasive bureaucratic mentality is an intellectual problem, with philosophical causes, and ultimately leads to events such as the Taggert Tunnel disaster.
Do you think it is?
I'd rather believe it is the manifestation of the DS MOD, in which necessary activities are replaced by paper pushing and useless paragraphs. Nothing to do with intellect.
All of which are aimed at creating a system where those in power are never questioned about accountability.
Yes, he did but he probably had no credible grasp on the extent of it and how deeply it was ingrained. We are finding out drip by drip (usually after the fact) where torpedoing Trump's efforts are originating, and sometimes even the players.
It took many decades to build the DS, its tentacles extended and fortified during Bush and Obama. That fortress can't be dismantled in three years, with the headwind the left is putting up against it.
I think that no matter how a whistleblower gets his data, it should NOT be illegal. Remember, the whole idea of a whistleblower is that they are uncovering illegal things that someone else has done but covered up.
Manning stole and exposed genuine military secrets in time of war, endangering many innocent people. Of course that should be illegal. "The ends justify the means" is not a proper moral principle; it does not excuse anything that someone does in the name of being "right", which is anarchy.
"Whistleblowing" does not properly include or excuse politically motivated crimes. There is no place in a proper legal system for the concept of "political crimes" at all. No actions should be 'criminalized' for political reasons and no crimes should be excused for political reasons.
Much of what is exposed today by genuine whistleblowers is not illegal activity. The problem is that it is policy under the law, not an aberration. The debate is over proper principles and functions of government, which must be pursued by intellectual means, not leftist propaganda covering for their own criminality.
If Assange was part of that then he shares the guilt regardless of what else he has done.
In addition to his current British imprisonment tortured in solitary confinement without medical care, several countries want to extradite him (in several different directions at the same time).
After all the people like Assange, Snowden, and other "whistleblowers" have done to expose government injustice-by-design, sometimes becoming at least briefly known for it by the public, almost everyone is too busy with their own lives to follow this enough to see both the lack of reform and what happens to those who expose the corruption. Once out of the mainstream public eye, they are essentially punished and brutalized mostly outside the court system.
The torture scene near the end of Atlas Shrugged was good romantic fiction to make a philosophical/psychological point, but is not realistic. There will most likely be no rescue for Assange.
I tend to believe the real mover behind his present mistreatment is GCHQ, which stands to be embarrassed if Assange is ever put on the witness stand even in a closed US court.
But that is not representative of most of what Assange has done. Governments have been after him since long before that and cannot make the distinction.
Torture without a public trial that would publicize the essence of his career campaign is what they would also like to do to Edward Snowden. Snowden has recently been interviewed about his new book Permanent Record https://www.amazon.com/Permanent-Reco...
Recent interviews covering his current status:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k19Ip...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4nFG...
Conspiracy by Louis Nizer. It said (as I recall) that at one point it was decided that the jury should be told the secret to the atomic bomb, but that somehow this part of the trial would not, naturally, be made public. The jury, I assume, was told that they would have to keep secret what it was.
The German-born communist physicist Klaus Fuchs had been spying for the Soviets while working on the atomic bomb in Britain and then beginning in late 1943 in the US. He was arrested in 1950 back in Britain after Soviet codes were broken by the US, exposing his role. He confessed and fingered others in the spy ring, leading to evidence that resulted in the arrest of the Rosenbergs. After the fall of the Soviet Union documents in Soviet archives further confirmed their guilt.
Building a chain reaction nuclear fission bomb was a complex engineering problem pursued in secrecy in the 1940s, first in the US, Britain and Germany, and later in the Soviet Union. There was no one secret, although the existence of the development of an atom bomb was a big political secret until the two bombs dropped on Japan to end WWII. It was then loudly no longer a secret. The two bombs dropped on Japan were entirely different designs, one using uranium and the other plutonium. They had been developed in parallel, each with its own multiple problems to overcome and whose technical solutions were all supposed to be kept secret.
Klaus Fuchs and others inside the development projects were feeding information to the Soviets both during and after the war and by 1949 the Soviets had tested their first bomb, years before expected. The Rosenbergs, arrested in 1950, were part of the spy ring that made the Soviet success possible by providing numerous design and technical details to the Soviets as they were evolving.
There was no one "secret of the atomic bomb" to reveal at the Rosenberg jury trial, and the jury would not have been able to understand all the technical secrets. So I don't know what is meant by "it was decided that the jury should be told the secret to the atomic bomb". There had been a steady stream of information passed to the Soviets by the Rosenbergs, Fuchs and others.
You can read the full transcript of the trial at https://famous-trials.com/images/ftri... but it's over 2500 typed pages.
The economy is booming and socialism is promising to spread the wealth of the Rich to the not so rich.
My point is simply that people seem to only embrace change when current conditions are unsatisfactory. Translated, this means they need to see collectivism producing disaster before they will abandon it and even consider something else.
I never said that collapse of current collectivism would simply and blindly result in the acceptance of objectivism and individual freedom. I think that it will take a great sales effort to promote capitalism and individual responsibility over collectivism.
There is no excuse to continue the endless circling in search of a rationalization to make Manning into a martyr. He's a convicted felon and a radical leftist, not a victim and not a freedom fighter.
Hatred for this country does not make him anything other than what he is. Leftist "anti-war" "war crimes" rhetoric does not justify anarchy.
Eventually, the system will collapse on its own, strike or no strike, At least a strike CAN be ended and the system rebuilt more quickly than if it just totally collapses due to government strangulation
You have no knowledge of whether the system will "eventually collapse" or when or why, or how to "end" a "strike" that has no meaning other than a floating abstraction, or how to "rebuild a system" leaving out the entire realm of the ideas and basic premises that people hold. This has all been discussed here many times. You can't answer it but always come back to the same bitter "bring down the system" false premise.
The constant, bitter nihilistic rhetoric always circling back to the same defiant emotions replacing both means and ends is the opposite of Ayn Rand. She rejected and denounced the anti-intellectual, anti-philosophic libertarian "hippies of the right" for good reason.
She repeatedly emphasized the importance of the role of ideas in the course of a country and repeatedly emphasized the necessity to spread the right ideas of reason, egoism and individualism in a civilized manner as the only way to correct the coarse of this nation. She rejected the libertarian anarchists and subjectivists, as well as those on the left, as the opposite of her views.
You have no idea what will happen when, in California or anywhere else. There are many paths possible for a mixed system. If a Dark Ages style complete collapse does eventually come it will be as a consequence of dominance of bad philosophical ideas much worse and much deeper than today's mixed statism politics alone, or from a massive physical catastrophe.
The political trends are bad and worsening, with only secondary temporary backlashes, because of the bad ideas of unreason, altruism and collectivism now widely accepted. Unknown is what the country may have to go through over some long period of time before a new resurgence of reason and individualism can raise the culture out of stagnant tribalism and statism of some degree even worse than what we are currently headed towards.
Following the New Left mentality of attacks on the military and trying to deliberately sabotage the current system into a collapse is a horrible strategy that will will never help anyone. It only feels right to those who harbor dark nihilistic emotions taken as their absolute as they lash out at society with no understanding or strategy for improvement beyond their own wishful thinking for reform by magic -- while they gravitate to the negativism to the point of wanting to see a collapse, even at the expense of their own destruction, as in a death wish.
Ayn Rand was not Bill Ayres. She never supported the likes of a Bradley Manning.
The leftists want the capitalistic system to
fail so they can take over power and put in an elite controlled collectivist system. They might not get it in 2020, but it’s pretty certain they will in 2024.
You might think California will recover, but I don’t see it before a real collapse opens peoples minds to individualism. Before that it’s most likely the people there will just go after the free goodies
You write as if you have never read Ayn Rand's own ideas and what she wrote about implementing and fighting for them.
Ayn Rand spent a lifetime explaining and arguing "the serious issue of what needs to happen in order for the ideas people hold dear to change".
How many times does this have to be discussed here? Have you already forgotten all that has been written about it, which you could not answer but seemed to be beginning to understand?
This included what Ayn Rand wrote herself about her purpose in writing Atlas Shrugged, but you ignore it because it clashes with your desire for a grand collapse as the Big Solution.
How many times does statism have to fail before the magic conversion of society that you predict sets in? Do you think that statism has not yet displayed its failures in countless previous collapses and destruction? Why do you think people keep trying it despite the record?
Exactly how do you think that another "real collapse" would "open people's minds" to principles of individualism they have never discovered and do not know or understand? It is you who thinks that ideas take hold by magic.
You write as if when you first read Atlas Shrugged you were attracted not to its values and the intellectual means of achieving them by the "men of the mind", but to a defiantly nihilistic glory of dramatic collapse, destruction and widespread misery as a moral goal -- and as if you have never since read or thought about Ayn Rand's non-fiction explanations and emphasis on proper, rational principles and spreading their understanding.
Instead you continuously circle back to calling for destruction and collapse as the answer to all problems, clung to as an emotional absolute you can't let go of as your own version of the Glory of God's Wrath as a projection of your own.
It "facilitates" nothing good, which pipe dream is an anti-intellectual, anti-Ayn Rand emotionalist desire evading the necessity of reason and philosophic understanding of individualism required for an advanced civilization.
When you become an eager apologist for the likes of the neurotic leftist ideologue Bradley Manning you have reached a nihilistic intellectual bottom in your quest for ends without means, in denial of causality.
All of this has been discussed at length and in detail. You have never had any answer to it but emotionally cling to a desire for nationwide destruction, always returning to it as if it were an untouchable metaphysical absolute. It is a false premise.
Snowden can't be pardoned without without turning against the whole national policy of mass surveillance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3...
That line has become a slogan. But when I first saw/heard Nicholson utter the words, it was a turn off.
He is a great actor but the bombastic way that sentence was supposed to underline what was going on did not accomplish the effect it was intended. You just thought "What a jerk".
This is my personal opinion and I respect anybody's take on it, despite my note.