The Julian Assange Indictment, by Robert Gore
This is the full text of the article I published on Straight Line Logic, minus a picture of Julian Assange.
The death of the First Amendment
The US Department of Justice has brought an 18-charge indictment against Julian Assange. Seventeen of the counts are for violations of the Espionage Act. To much scorn and derision Wikileaks and Assange have been warning for years that this is exactly what the US government would do. They have been vindicated. Obama Justice Department lawyers, examining the exact same evidence as the Trump Justice Department lawyers, declined to press charges against Assange because they believed it would criminalize essential elements of journalism, one of which is disclosure of secrets the government would rather not have disclosed, and obliterate the First Amendment. The Obama lawyers were right.
The Trump administration is attempting to silence a journalist and organization that have acted as a clearinghouse for whistleblowers outside and inside governments who have courageously sought to reveal their governments' depredations and crimes. In this country, Assange and Wikileaks have embarrassed and infuriated both the left and right, Democrats and Republicans, and so they have no friends or protectors within the powers that be. An important point is that they have done their job mostly with documents and other materials produced by the perpetrators themselves. Telling the truth has indeed become a revolutionary act, which is always a hallmark of tyranny.
Once upon a time some of us hoped that voting for Donald Trump was a revolutionary act, but like most stories that begin with, "Once upon a time," that has proven a fairy tale. Unless Trump issues a full and unconditional pardon for Assange before he has to undergo years of legal proceedings fighting extradition in Europe and Britain, and then this indictment in the US, never again will I support Donald Trump. Nor will I support any other politician who either supports the indictment or refuses to make his or her opinion known about the matter. At this time, only Tulsi Gabbard has publicly supported Julian Assange, and if she continues to do so she has my vote in 2020, regardless of my complete disagreement with many of her other positions. She would be the first Democrat for whom I've ever voted.
That makes me a one-issue voter. I'm a writer and speaker, often writing and speaking about government and politics. I cherish my freedom and the threat to it is the issue most important to me. To all those who regard the First Amendment as subsidiary to other issues—foreign policy, the economy, immigration, the stock market, or the other headline grabbers—or who feel that the US can still be a "great" nation without the First Amendment I say this: you are fools, you fully deserve what's coming, and don't you dare bewail your fate or that of your country when what remains of the greatness of America is gone and it has become the tyrannical hellhole that appears to be its destiny.
The death of the First Amendment
The US Department of Justice has brought an 18-charge indictment against Julian Assange. Seventeen of the counts are for violations of the Espionage Act. To much scorn and derision Wikileaks and Assange have been warning for years that this is exactly what the US government would do. They have been vindicated. Obama Justice Department lawyers, examining the exact same evidence as the Trump Justice Department lawyers, declined to press charges against Assange because they believed it would criminalize essential elements of journalism, one of which is disclosure of secrets the government would rather not have disclosed, and obliterate the First Amendment. The Obama lawyers were right.
The Trump administration is attempting to silence a journalist and organization that have acted as a clearinghouse for whistleblowers outside and inside governments who have courageously sought to reveal their governments' depredations and crimes. In this country, Assange and Wikileaks have embarrassed and infuriated both the left and right, Democrats and Republicans, and so they have no friends or protectors within the powers that be. An important point is that they have done their job mostly with documents and other materials produced by the perpetrators themselves. Telling the truth has indeed become a revolutionary act, which is always a hallmark of tyranny.
Once upon a time some of us hoped that voting for Donald Trump was a revolutionary act, but like most stories that begin with, "Once upon a time," that has proven a fairy tale. Unless Trump issues a full and unconditional pardon for Assange before he has to undergo years of legal proceedings fighting extradition in Europe and Britain, and then this indictment in the US, never again will I support Donald Trump. Nor will I support any other politician who either supports the indictment or refuses to make his or her opinion known about the matter. At this time, only Tulsi Gabbard has publicly supported Julian Assange, and if she continues to do so she has my vote in 2020, regardless of my complete disagreement with many of her other positions. She would be the first Democrat for whom I've ever voted.
That makes me a one-issue voter. I'm a writer and speaker, often writing and speaking about government and politics. I cherish my freedom and the threat to it is the issue most important to me. To all those who regard the First Amendment as subsidiary to other issues—foreign policy, the economy, immigration, the stock market, or the other headline grabbers—or who feel that the US can still be a "great" nation without the First Amendment I say this: you are fools, you fully deserve what's coming, and don't you dare bewail your fate or that of your country when what remains of the greatness of America is gone and it has become the tyrannical hellhole that appears to be its destiny.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
We'll have to see what happens. The manning thing, I could understand, the rest, as you say, is against free speech.
That is my understanding of the issue anyway.
That makes this the only one (barely) in existence at present, as bad as it is.
I agree that the Republicans have been hardly better than the Democrats, and more dishonest about their actual intentions in recent years.
If you looked back at my postings leading up to the 2016 elections you'd know that I didn't support either major party, and I wasn't particularly impressed with the Libertarian Johnson-NELooter ticket either. My opinions of politicians are even lower now than then. Trump is doing about as well as I expected, and although I am pretty certain that Hitlery would have been worse, we won't get the rights back that we are supposedly born with by supporting someone who doesn't protect what is stated in the Bill of Rights. I don't see a single member of con-gress, the court, or the president that is doing that- and they swear an oath to do exactly that.
I think Goldwater had the best chance to be a non-socialist, had he been elected, but he would have had to be opposed to every bill in con-gress except those that repealed previous socialist bills; that would probably have been impossible. Even the best of them compromise and concede our rights, and according to the constitution, they should not have that power.
Of course. My point is gov't not respecting rights is normal. Power flowing from the people to the gov't with protections against tyranny of the majority is the exception. So when I see people using gov't to hide things from the people and when I see socialist policies, I never think "how could this happen. It's a harbinger of doom." Instead I think this what we were trying to climb out and we haven't done it yet.
Your point is well taken. I regard the First Amendment as foundational, like the Second Amendment. If you don't have either one, you don't have a country worth living in. From what I've heard about Gabbard and the Second Amendment, that may sink any incipient support I might have for her. Every other politician's lack of support for Assange and the First Amendment has already sunk any potential for supporting them, and that includes Trump. As for socialism, that ship sailed in 1913. Every politician elected since then, with the exception of Ron Paul, has been a socialist, judging them by their actions rather than their words. It's just a question of whether they admit it, like many of the Democrats, or just implement it while hypocritically denouncing it, like the Republicans. From that perspective, I'm better off not supporting any politician, including Gabbard or Trump, who's actual actions promote my own destruction.
Use rational thought before you vote for a socialist who opposes everything else that you believe in. Based on your own postings about politicians, you should realize that Gabbard's position on this is likely only to criticize the administration, garner attention, and if there was a Democrat in the White House she would be in full support. Even if she is actually be honest about this, do you really want a self admitted socialist to control the executive branch?