Biden Continues Trump’s War On The Press
- Total Posts: 1,925
Biden isn’t just upholding Trump’s assault on press freedoms, he’s rejecting Obama’s decision not to charge Assange due to First Amendment concerns, writes Caitlin Johnstone.
Just one day after a coalition of prominent civil rights groups made headlines with a letter urging the Biden administration to drop efforts to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States on espionage charges, the Biden administration has announced its intention to continue those efforts.
“Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi on Tuesday said the U.S. government will continue to challenge a British judge’s ruling last month that Assange should not be extradited to the United States because of the risk he would commit suicide,” Reuters reports.
“We continue to seek his extradition,” Raimondi said.
If those who denounced Trump's attacks on press freedom actually meant what they said, they will be the first to denounce the Biden admin's decision to *continue* the most egregious and harmful one. Where are you at on this, @BernieSanders @AOC @NancyPelosi @SenSchumer? https://t.co/sOIxfEmESk
— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) February 9, 2021
Assange’s arrest and subsequent charges under the Espionage Act in 2019 for what amount to standard journalistic practices which exposed U.S. war crimes marked both a dramatic escalation in the U.S. empire’s war on critical national security journalism and a sharp divergence from the Obama administration’s decision not to pursue such charges in this case.
"Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime" - Aristotle "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine" - George Bernard Shaw "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK #SurviveAndRevolt
February 11, 2021 at 2:44 PM #402565salemcourtParticipant
- Total Posts: 2,644
Any criticism of Biden will not be allowed by MSM (other than Fox) and other media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. I can foresee such dissent being soon criminalized. People who question the election now are being investigated as potential supporters of domestic terrorism and subject to further legal action.
February 11, 2021 at 3:20 PM #402571Ohio BarbarianModerator
- Total Posts: 20,155
He’s a true Fascist. It’s no surprise he will continue the persecution of people like Assange, and will push for Big Tech to shut down his media critics as much as possible, and Big Tech will be happy to go along so long as they are awarded with fat government contracts.
Bernie Sanders and the Squad are no more than Fascist enablers so long as they cooperate with this administration when it does Fascist things, or by remaining silent.
It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs
You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton
February 11, 2021 at 5:41 PM #402599soryangParticipant
- Total Posts: 1,150
I believe the second indictment was designed to get around the First Amendment issue. Of course an indictment is not evidence. I just put the link here for reference. The 2nd indictment info begins on page 5.
The “alleged conduct” in support of the 2nd indictment begins on page 9 and basically is alleged to support inchoate crimes like “solitation of a criminal offense,” “accessory” to Chelsea Manning, “conspiracy” to violate national security laws, etc.
While I believe the First Amendment defense is critically important and should be maintained at all costs, the inchoate offenses may just be crafty wordsmithing. I think there are jurisdictional issues as well.
Ultimately, in a practical sense, i think an 8th Amendment defense is appropriate, as it was in Manning’s case. We have punishment without trial, his defacto incarceration in the Ecuador embassy for years, and the current conditions of his incarceration inside the UK. In effect, he has been punished without trial, and now the US wants a second bite at the apple. I think in the case of Manning, a dismissal of the case against him was the appropriate remedy under US law under the 8th Amendment, and that his commutation and release was related to this issue, so as not to have it adjudicated. imo.
February 12, 2021 at 3:09 AM #402762snotParticipant
- Total Posts: 1,179
February 12, 2021 at 4:02 AM #402771soryangParticipant
- Total Posts: 1,150
I know that his military attorney made an excellent record at courts-martial, about the speedy trial violation, and the punitive treatment he received in the brig, before his trial. Yet, i never found or saw anything in the press or elsewhere on the treatment or disposition of this claim on appeal by his civilian appellate attorneys. So this is just my guesswork. I think the lower courts just said, he was given credit for his pretrial detention so that’s good enough. My understanding of the law, which is way out of date, that it isn’t enough; dismissal of the charges and restoration of rank and back pay, was the appropriate remedy. By commuting his sentence, the issue became moot.
February 12, 2021 at 4:39 AM #402776
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.