Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Ecuadorian President's Motives for Surrendering Assange: Vengeance u0026 IMF Loan?" video.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@teddyboef2821 "That says all we need to know." It says only that there was such a smorgasboard of facts, half facts and opinions, some of which I agreed with, and some I didn't, that I didn't get around to responding. But if it will keep you happy.
The matter of revoking asylum. To say that it is against international law is asinine. No government operates entirely within international law. They do only what is expedient. Assange did so much to outstay his welcome that I was amazed he lasted as long as he did. He was like a little kid hiding behind his marginally bigger brother and throwing rocks whilst enemies twice the size of the big brother surrounded them both. He was a fool who didn't know when to act tactically. But would governments like him dead? Yes, and with good reason. That reason is not in the interests of the people, nor wholly against them either, but the reason is valid nevertheless.
Yes, the government DOES abuse national security, exactly as it is doing with border funding right now. It's a complicated issue. NO governments can operate without a level of secrecy, and it is not for an individual with no comprehension of the greater context to arbitrarily decide when to undermine that secrecy. That's why this is nuanced. Whistle blowers are vital. Edward Snowden was a true hero and martyr to the planet. Assange was a hero who abused asylum and became a self serving fool.
Wikileaks is NOT covered under the constitution. Freedom of the press has limits and Assange breached those limits. No newspaper could print the identities of spies operating in foreign countries for instance.
But this is why the entire issue needs publishers/journalists who are themselves sqeaky clean. As long as Assange's motivations were to the truth and the wellbeing of the people, he was a hero. Clinton was regularly investigated and cleared of wrong doing. The "man" in charge of the nation right now despises her, and has the most dishonest self-serving senate in living memory walking in lock-step ready to approve his every inane piece of mental vomit, yet STILL they have provided nothing but innuendo. BUT, yes, she was an appalling candidate and an entitled, horrible human being. But for all that, she was still infinitely better than Trump. HIS legacy will scar the planet and geopolitics far beyond the life even of his youngest son. None of which is relevant. The second Assange made it personal and started choosing winners and losers in national elections, then he become a political operative, and a foreign agent and should be treated as such.
For better or for worse, we elect our representatives and can theoretically hold them accountable. Nobody elected Assange and he answers to no one. That makes him a liability to democracy. It's like vigilantes - they make great movie characters, and we can all empathise with someone who sidesteps the law to take revenge, but with only a second of thought and a modicum of intelligence, you can immediately see why such a role could never be sanctioned or allowed to go unpunished.
1
-
1
-
1