Assange
Not exactly the most balanced viewpoint but worth a listen:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8W9DqF6K7Pk
I have been expecting someone to being up the whole Assange issue yet no one here has. What are your thoughts about this and what appears to be a lack of coverage on the matter?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8W9DqF6K7Pk
I have been expecting someone to being up the whole Assange issue yet no one here has. What are your thoughts about this and what appears to be a lack of coverage on the matter?
Comments (326)
My youtube broadcast of that contains a warning that RT is funded by the Russian government. Does yours say that?
...but MY take on the Assange issue is that he has been charged with crimes against the US...
...and I would love to see him be extradited to the US; stand a fair trial; and either be released or punished depending on the verdict of a jury and the rule of law.
"No way I would spend 20 minutes watching a video..."
Sounds right to me.
Yes.
If he had instead come back to the US...the situation could be different. But if a court in the US decided his deportation to Ecuador were proper...away he would go.
By the way...the UK police entered the Ecuadorian embassy by invitation of Ecuador.
So, wouldn't you require an Ecuadorian (or, an Australian) court to authorize the deportation to the US, in the actual scenario? That is conspicuously absent.
Note, the Ecuadorian government requested, in writing, an assurance from the UK that Assange would not be deported to places where the death penalty is a possibility (we all know who they were thinking about; it was not Iran or China).
They didn't really need to as it's against UK law to extradite anyone who could face the death penalty anyway.
You asked a question. I answered it.
Assange has been charged with crimes against the US. If he is sent here by the UK (not a certainty) I want to see him get a fair trial.
I have confidence that the charges brought are reasonable...and that he can get a fair trial in the US>
If you don't...that is your prerogative.
Thereby revealing a double standard. Which is your prerogative.
There was NO double standard.
If the laws of all the countries involved are followed...it is okay with me.
What is your problem?
A citizen of country M is accused by people in country N. He is currently in country P, an ally of N. He is in risk of being extradited to N. He gets asylum in country Q's embassy. Later, country Q decides to revoke his asylum. Country P gets custody of him. It will decide whether to extradite him to N or not. In making this decision, it ought to take into account the opinion of the government of M, as well as its own laws, but the government of M is not in a position to prevent the extradition.
Does that sound like a fair summary of Assange's position?
Now check your reaction to this scenario, in which the countries are named:
A citizen of the US is accused by people in China. He is currently in Pakistan, an ally of China. He is in risk of being extradited to China. He gets asylum in Portugal's embassy. Later, Portugal decides to revoke his asylum. Pakistan gets custody of him. It will decide whether to extradite him to China or not. In making this decision, it ought to take into account the opinion of the government of the US, as well as its own laws, but the government of the US is not in a position to prevent the extradition.
Sounds ok now?
The problem in discussing international relations with US citizens is that they often forget that they are just another country, and that their courts, government, agents, do not enjoy any special presumption of innocence. International relations is a tough game. There are no special countries.
An American is believed to have interfered with your country's election. Where do you want this American to be tried? In the United States?
If the laws of the countries involved are being followed...I am okay with it.
If you want to think I am a hypocrite espousing a "double standard"...not much I can do about it.
Assange has been charged with crimes against the US. Whether he is guilty of those crimes or not...I DO NOT KNOW. But I would like to see him extradited to the US to stand trial for those crimes.
If he is not found guilty...I want to see him go free...and, in fact, given transport to whatever country he chooses. If he is found guilty...whatever punishment is appropriate should be assessed.
If you think that is unfair...
...be my guest.
The idea of a fair trial and the rule of law do not apply here. Assange revealed horrible US war crimes. For that he must be punished. As we speak, he and Chelsea Manning are in prison for revealing to the world the true nature of US foreign policy. That cannot be forgiven. There is no fair trial here. If fairness applied, the people who committed the war crimes exposed by Manning and Assange would be brought to justice.
Assange is the perfect example of the impossibility of independent investigative whistleblowing on a large scale. You either follow one actors fiddle or the other in today's hostile climate. This was obvious even before the Swedish rape allegations and Mr Assange's voluntary confinement in the Equadorean embassy. You pick one side or another.
After publishing to the World what one soldier had copied from military database, Assange was financed by the Russians and did get a lucrative deal with the Russian media and had his own "World Tomorrow" show on Russia Today.
And this naturally meant that Assange has NEVER said a bad Word about Putin, the killings of journalists in Russia and actually when the Panama Papers got out WAS AGAINST this, defended Putin and naturally attacked who else than GEORGE SOROS: See here. A perfect example of reurgitation of Russian propaganda. Needless to go to the Wikileaks/Russia link in the 2016 elections.
But this of course means nothing to those that have put mr Assange on a pedestal as a beacon of freedom. In my view it just shows how easily and willingly people do take sides.
This is America. The way we arrive at a decision on matters of this sort...is by a trial.
That is what I want to see.
Another example: Salman Rushdie's fatwa was perfectly legal according to the Iranian laws.
Pinochet's prison was obviously illegal according to then-prevailing international law.
Etc.
Laws (of any country, or even international) are merely a (small) piece of the jigsaw puzzle. And if some of them are considered as of more worth than others, then we have -- by definiion -- a double standard.
I did not say you said I was a hypocrite. I said, "If you want to think I am a hypocrite espousing a "double standard"...not much I can do about it."
You certainly inferred a double standard on my part...and I consider the "if" hypothetical appropriate. In the interest of understanding each other, I withdraw that comment.
Things like this happen.
I still do not think I am applying a double standard.
I replied that I would want the SAME standard applied to an American in the same position.
Not sure how you interpret that to be applying a double standard, but there truly is NOTHING I can do about it if you do.
I am an American who has trust in our judicial system. I do NOT think it is perfect, but I think for the most part it is fair. Julian Assange has been accused of crimes against America...
...and I champion a fair trial for him IF he can legally be brought back to America for a such a trial.
My guess is he will have MORE THAN ADEQUATE legal representation.
I champion him being appropriately punished if found guilty...BUT I also champion him being release immediately if there is no guilty verdict.
I truly am at a loss about what you see as unfair or "double standard"ish about that.
Mariner...if that was addressed to me...I would ask:
What the hell does that have to do with anything I have said on the subject of this thread?
What is the absurd comparison you are attempting to make to anything I have said?
What is the purpose of your question?
It was addressed to you.
And if the analogy isn't clear, that is worrisome.
You said that you were fine with the treatment of Assange because you trust the law system of your country.
If an Iranian treated Rushdie according to the law system of his country, would you think it ok?
If you would not, then you have a double standard. You think that the law system of the US is worth more than the law system of Iran.
The legalistic argument in defense of Assange's treatment breaks down. One can support that treatment because one thinks he is a criminal (and laws be damned!), but not because "Law systems ought to be respected" (unless he is fine with the Rushdie execution as well).
I don't think that it's a double-standard to think that one country's legal system is better than another's if there are material differences between them. It would be a double-standard if the legal systems were the same but one was OK with it happening to a Swede being extradited to the United States but not an American being extradited to Sweden (assuming for the sake of argument that the U.S. and Sweden have similar legal systems).
So in this case one can argue that vigilante execution is an immoral punishment but that imprisonment for 5 years after a trial by jury with guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt is acceptable.
I have said that I would treat the hypothetical you originally offered THE SAME as I would treat the Assange issue. For some reason, you then accused me of having a double standard.
Now you are reaching further and further into absurdity in order to suggest that I am of a double standard.
My position is:
Assange has been charged with crimes by the United States. Do you disagree with that?
IF Assange is legally extradited to the US, I want him to receive a fair trial. Do you disagree with that?
IF found guilty, I want him to receive the punishment mandated by law. Do you disagree with that?
IF not convicted, I want to see him release immediately...and transported to the country of his choosing. Do you disagree with that.
Let's return this discussion to the topic at hand...
...and you can consider me to be as much a low-life as you want.
The topic is Assange...not me...or YOUR opinion of me.
When someone says that laws X are worse than laws Y, he is already judging them by some other standard (in this case, an ethical standard). If you use an ethical standard (only one!) to judge the law systems of the world, you will reach different conclusions. But if you use the legalistic standard ("if it is [procedurally] legal, then it is ok"), it must be accepted in the Iranian case as well.
For the record, I don't think you are a low life. It is strange that you think that an analysis of your stance is so momentous.
In reply to your questions:
I agree that Assange has been charged with crimes by the United States.
[Whether the court system of the US is synonymous with "the United States" is another can of worms, but let's leave this to the side for now].
I agree that IF Assange is legally extradited to the US, you want him to receive a fair trial.
I agree that IF he is found guilty, you want him to receive the punishment mandated by law.
I agree that IF not convicted, you want to see him release immediately...and transported to the country of his choosing.
But you are still insisting on not looking to the substantial issues, focusing only on the procedural issues (which is why you have a double standard).
Suppose Brazil had a law against posts made by people called Francisco.
Suppose you were charged with crimes according to this law.
Would you accept extradition from the US to Brazil, in order to be tried (very fairly, as fairly as a court can do), to be released in the case that you proved that your name is actually Francis?
I am using ridiculous examples to underline the weakness of the legalistic argument ("if a law is being followed according to the procedures, there is nothing wrong going on"). Perhaps Assange ought not to be extradited because his indictment is unjust, even though procedurally legal. This should be discussed by anyone who wants to understand the Assange situation. And insisting that the procedures are being followed as if this were enough to settle the matter cannot but reveal a double standard, since I'm quite sure you would not accept analogous situations (already presented), even though procedures were being followed flawlessly.
Okay...we are in agreement on those matters above.
I am no longer going to deal with your hypotheticals. If you want to think negatively of me or my arguments...do it without creating those things. I am okay with whatever you think of me and my arguments.
A trial on the charge of committing journalism.
yeah, about that...
:up:
That is not what he is charged with.
Are you also saying he is charged with committing journalism?
If so, you are incorrect.
Collateral Murder
Yes. I say that. Please read what Glenn Greenwald has to say. He breaks it down in detail. The "computer hacking" charge is a blatant lie.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indictment-of-julian-assange-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedoms/
[quote]
The other key fact being widely misreported is that the indictment accuses Assange of trying to help Manning obtain access to document databases to which she had no valid access: i.e., hacking rather than journalism. But the indictment alleges no such thing. Rather, it simply accuses Assange of trying to help Manning log into the Defense Department’s computers using a different username so that she could maintain her anonymity while downloading documents in the public interest and then furnish them to WikiLeaks to publish.
In other words, the indictment seeks to criminalize what journalists are not only permitted but ethically required to do: take steps to help their sources maintain their anonymity. As longtime Assange lawyer Barry Pollack put it: “The factual allegations … boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identity of that source. Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges.”
[quote]
There's much more in the article. Please read it.
If Glenn Greenwald wants to come here to discuss this with me...he is welcome to come.
I am discussing it with the people who are here.
Here is what I am saying to you: Assange IS NOT being charged with "journalism."
We do not know for certain what he is being charged with...but it appears he is being charged with aiding Chelsea Manning (when she was Bradley Manning) to hack government computers in order to obtain unauthorized access to government classified documents.
I'll state Greenwald's observations in my own words so that if you are so inclined, you can discuss them here.
Assange is charged with helping Manning "hack," or penetrate, a government computer; meaning to access files that Manning was not entitled to see.
On the contrary, what Assange actually did was to (unsuccessfully) assist Manning in attempting to cover her tracks when she was accessing files that she already had legal access to. In doing so, Assange was conforming to standard journalistic practice when dealing with whistleblowers and other sources who dare not have their identity disclosed. For Assange to have done anything other than assist Manning in disguising her identity, would have been journalistic malpractice.
Secondly, I do of course take your point that Assange might (or might not; time will tell) have the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. I assert to the contrary that any such prosecution (and there's a long long way to go before any such proceeding happens) is essentially illegitimate. The US prosecution (and persecution) of Assange is more like a show trial in a banana republic. You may recall that nothing that happened in Nazi Germany was illegal. That's because the law and the judiciary themselves became corrupted.
Assange is a political prisoner. That should color your analysis regarding this idea of a fair trial. The very idea that he's on trial in the first place is indecent.
I was with you up to this point. There hasn't been a trial. Why are you raving about something that hasn't happened?
Anyway, we need to question him about his work for Russia regarding the 2016 election.
I'm not raving. I object to that characterization. It's @Frank Apisa who said that his standard for judging this affair is that Assange will (in theory) get a fair trial. As I countered that thesis, I noted at least twice that we are a very long way from Assange being tried in the US. Surely you can see that I clearly acknowledged that point. It's right there in my post, twice.
Quoting frank
Man that ship has sailed. There was an election and Hillary lost. There was no collusion. Assange has stated that Russia was not the source for the DNC leaks. And why didn't the DNC allow the FBI to inspect their computers? Might they have shown that the hack was strictly local, as has already been technically demonstrated?
The DNC hack was an inside job and there is forensic evidence to that effect.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
There's another election coming up. Next time run a better candidate. I myself would be glad to vote for him or her.
The above part is raving. There hasn't been a trial. We may disappear Assange banana-republic-style. Or we may try him for hacking a government computer in exactly the same way we would try any journalist for hacking a government computer.
Quoting fishfry
We haven't asked him any questions yet. How has anything sailed?
There has been persecution. Last week's arrest was such. The IMF gave Ecuador $4 billion the week earlier. Just a coincidence I'm sure.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-imf/ecuador-inks-4-2-billion-financing-deal-with-imf-moreno-idUSKCN1QA05Z
Quoting frank
Yeah, curious that Mueller didn't try to ask Assange about that.
What's sailed is the Russia hysteria. It's over. And what do you think about the Nation article I linked?
He didn't have a chance to ask him, did he?
I'm not sure why anybody even knows who Assange is. Why didn't he hide his own identity? Do you know?
Assange is the publisher of WikiLeaks. Manning is the soldier whoturned over to Assange evidence of horrific US war crimes.
Assange unsuccessfully attempted to assist Manning in obscuring Manning's identity. Was that the question?
That's because Manning was accessing the files in order to turn them over to Assange. What Manning did was a crime. What Assange did was journalism. Classic Pentagon papers precedent. That's exactly why the US cooked up this bogus "hacking" charge. They knew they'd lose on the issue of the right of publishers to publish material that was turned over to them by someone who stole it. [Manning's access was legal but of course that did not confer the right to turn the material over to a publisher].
But if the UK government were to extradite him to the US, or even to detain him solely for the purpose of considering such an extradition, he would absolutely be a political prisoner.
Sydney Morning Herald.
I think it's indisutable that Assange became motivated by a deep hatred of Hillary Clinton and that Wikileaks to all intents and purposes acted as a defacto Russian agency during the 2016 presidential campaign. As has been noted, Trump mentioned Wikileaks favourably 114 times during the campaign when it was producing information that he believed was damaging to his political opponents.
Also it should be noted that Assange is not a journalist and that Wikileaks does not abide by any of the rules or conventions of publishers. Whilst wikileaks certainly exposed some egregious criminal acts by it was also completely indiscriminate in its distribution of sensitive information including publishing unredacted details of US informants in active theatres of war and thereby exposing them to mortal risk (not that anyone would know if there were such consequences.)
We do not know what Manning is charged with yet. Greenwald doesn't either. But WHATEVER it is...it is a charge brought by our government...and Assange should stand trial.
Whether you feel it will be a fair trial or not does not matter to me. I am confident that my country can bring charges and conduct a fair trial...and that is what I expect.
We determine the guilt or non-guilt by a trial.
There is no way I buy into your assertion that the prosecution or the charges are illegitimate. That is for the courts to decide.
I used to share your optimism and faith. I no longer do. My loss of faith happened when Bush turned the US into a torture regime ... and then Obama institutionalized the practice by not holding anyone accountable.
Sorry, I lost track of the referent. He Assange? Or he Manning?
Was the New York Times looking for "personal glory" when they published the Pentagon papers? Or were they simply journalists doing their job: reporting facts that powerful people want concealed?
Assange most certainly is a journalist. It is not required of a journalist to be accredited by the State. Numerous US court cases have upheld the rights of citizen journalists -- that is, people with cellphones and cameras and eyeballs and pencils -- to report the news.
He calls himself a journalist but he has no qualifications in that discipline and has never worked for accredited media. And Wikileaks doesn’t observe any of the conventions required of accredited media organisations. Basically it’s a platform where anonymous users are able to copy anything they want.
I understand. I think he was working for the Russian government, though.
But independent news outlets still undertake certain conventions, such as protection of witness names, and so on. When Wikileaks did that huge dump of classified military cables ten years ago, many of the names of US informants in Iraq were left unredacted, i.e. in plain text. This was the very thing that caused his then-colleague Daniel Domscheit-Berg to leave Wikileaks and write a scathing book about Assange's professional practices, or lack thereof. He said at the time that many of these informants had been exposed to retaliation, imprisonment or death - not that it was possible to verify this, as it was in the chaotic aftermath of the Iraqi occupation.
Also because of its purportedly anonymous nature, then nobody's name is 'on the masthead', so to speak. Even an independent website or journal has a publisher, with a name and address, who is ultimately responsible for what it publishes. There is no such mechanism with Wikileaks.
Don't mistake Assange for a white knight. He might have been, but he's not.
As somebody already pointed out, Assange did try to help his informant, Manning, to conceal his identity. The "informants" you speak of here were not Assange's informants, but were working for US intelligence. They were, if indeed they were harmed which is not proven, so-called "collateral damage".
Are you claiming that anything at all could have been uploaded to Wikileaks. that there was no vetting going on?
Oh the irony. 'Collateral damage' was precisely the name of the video which made Assange famous.
Quoting Janus
That was the whole point of the outlet. No holds barred, anything at all.
For heaven's sake, Janus, these were individuals caught up in a terrifying theatre of war, swarming with terrorists, IED's, American soldiers - your life, and your family's life, could be wiped out in a flash, on a whim. It was some of these poor miserable bastards who, for their own reasons, decided to translate for the yankees, presumably because they thought it might be a better deal than co-operating with the Iraqi mujahideen or some of the other sundry criminals and terrorists who were on every street corner. Then the yanks pull out, thanks, see you later, here's fifty bucks. And then a few years later, some asshole decides that it's alright if your name is published for all to see. Wouldn't you just love to hear the next knock on the door?
I don't know if you just being callous, or you don't understand, or you don't care, but I will be charitable and guess the second.
I haven't said Assange is a "white knight". I see no reason to doubt he is a flawed human being just like the rest of us. The real issue is over whether he has by any reasonable criteria committed any crime, or whether he is just being made into a "whipping boy", to be set up as a cautionary example by corrupt power elites.
https://www.wired.com/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/what-happened-to-wikileaks/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-posts-sensitive-medical-information-saudi-arabia
In a country where women are beaten to death for the crime of having allowed themselves to be raped.
There's your 'radical transparency' in action.
You do often seem to have great difficulty understanding what I say. I must be inarticulate, or something. ;-)
I generally understand perfectly well what you say; what I often don't get from you is a reasoned argument for why you are saying it.
I think that's the judgement that a trial is supposed to determine. So without a trial the question is rather pointless.
I think the facts on the record about what Assange has done show abundant evidence for, at the very least, reckless disregard for many individual lives. As to what crimes he has committed, no matter what he is accused of or convicted for, I'm sure many people will always believe that he's the real victim.
Reckless disregard for individual lives is not an indictable offense. The US and many other countries and corporations have shown such disregard over and over again.
It seems obvious what the real reason for the persecution of Assange is; if the power elites did not see him, and those who aspire to be like him, as a threat to their rule, and consequently to be treated as an example to be made to other would-be dissidents, none of what has happened to him would have transpired.
I think the US already has an indictment.
So it doesn't matter if Assange publishes information that leads to people being killed or jailed. Collateral damage, right?
Quoting YuZhonglu
Yeah but who wants a polonium pellet in their tea-pot. At least the yankees aren't going to send someone with nerve poison.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/doj-mistakenly-reveals-indictment-against-wikileaks-julian-assange.html
I don't know, I haven't seen the indictment, some espionage or something like that. I think the US wants to emphasize how some information was obtained, rather than the simple reporting of information.
I haven't seen Russia hysteria like this since the cold war. But Russia has journalists too. What difference does that make? He could be working for Satan and that would not change the fact that he published documents given to him by a third party, which is legal; and that his real crime is embarrassing the US government. All the rest is media spin that people are letting themselves absorb. I mean really, how do you or I know who Assange "works" for? If he worked for Mother Teresa would you feel differently about the case? Rationally you shouldn't. You should judge what he did, not what some rumor monger leaked to a credulous reporter. Don't you think?
Neither are factors in who is a journalist. As I mentioned, numerous court decisions have upheld the journalistic rights of average everyday citizens in reporting events of public interest. In the eyes of US law there is no difference between a credentialed reporter for the NY Times and me, out there with my camera reporting on a newsworthy event. That's the actual law.
I don't remember you being this loose-cannonish. If he worked for Russia, it just means he had a bias.
The info about the war crime didn't shock anyone. It didn't change anything. No one but a few bleeding heart philosophical types even care. Is that what you're really pissed off about? Because I could understand that.
The way to find out if Assange is guilty of a crime or not...is to have him stand trial. We have laws in the United States...and he has been charged with breaking at least one of those laws. (A serious one...not jaywalking.)
He should be brought to trial.
My guess is he will have a formidable defense team...financed by people who think he is being wronged.
The trial will determine whether he broke the law or not.
If not found guilty...he should be immediately released to whatever country he wants as home. If found guilty...he should pay the price the law calls for.
The charges seem to be that he assisted Chelsea Manning (at that time Bradley Manning) to break into US government computers and steal classified documents.
One does not have to be a citizen of a country to be charged with violating its laws.
On the off-shoot chance that you are correct (you are not)...it should be a snap for Assange to beat this rap. So no big deal.
If I am incorrect about that I would be very surprised. If I am correct about that, then unless Assange was in the US when the alleged crime was committed the US 'justice system' has no legal right to indict him in the first place.
Yeah, well what does that say about the populace? Perhaps the US authorities don't care that he revealed the footage of the gleeful shooting of innocents, and they probably likewise don't really care about the possibility that punitive actions were taken against Iraqi collaborators with the US (since traitors are not looked upon favorably by power elites even if they are helping those elites). It is more likely they simply care about their precious secrecy of information being violated.
Can we talk about the victims of the war crime? Or is Assange really that much more fascinating? Why?
There was another case where 7 Seals tried to get their commander prosecuted for war crimes in Iraq and they were told to let it go. Their persistence paid off. The commander was charged with murder.
What? X "works for Y means X has a bias? Come on, that's not even sensible. Works for means works for. You can't change the terms just because you have no evidence for what you claimed. [If you're the one who claimed Assange works for Russia. Didn't go back and look that up].
Quoting frank
I care. And a lot of Americans care. That's how we got Trump. Hillary stood for the centrist consensus that's turned us into a warmongering torture regime. Trump ran against that, and that's a big factor in why he won. It's sad and frustrating that he's now surrendered to the neocons. But Trump's victory shows that at the time, many Americans did and still do care about the endless immoral war machine. You may remember that during the primaries he called out Jeb! on W's war and that resonated like crazy with a lot of people, even Republicans.
If I am overzealous (loose cannon, whatever) it's because I'm a lifelong Democrat and social liberal who's appalled at what's become of the left and the Democratic party. I'm old enough to remember when Dems were against the wars and against torture and in favor of civil liberties. And instinctively suspicious of the bullshit put out by the intelligence agencies. Those days are gone, leaving me and millions like me without a political party. That's exactly how we got Trump. Hillary's vote for the Iraq war (and her impassioned 30-minute speech on the floor of the US Senate in favor of the war) is why she lost the Dem primary in 2008 and it's one of the reasons she lost to Trump in 2016. You're wrong that Americans don't care about our messed up foreign policy. Enough do to have made Trump president.
Cool. How do you show that? Do you take a moment of silence? Do you contribute to Doctors w/o borders? Do you write songs about it or paint? Do you talk to friends about it? Or what?
I'm right here making my points about the deep state. And being called a loose cannon because of it. Not much of a constituency for peace in the US anymore. If there ever was.
The OP doesn't limit it in that way. It just asks for thoughts. Stop being a thread Nazi.
Re Wikileak's commitment to journalism:
Again, Assange demands the privileges of 'freedom of the press' without observing the conventions, or observing them selectively:
note also an open letter to Obama in defense of Wikileaks, also published by RSF.
I am saying that if Assange violated the laws of the United States...he can be charged with crimes and brought to the US for trial. In fact, he has been charged with the crimes.
During the Mueller, 13 Russian nationals were indicted...some of whom have never been in the US.
You should be surprised...because you are wrong.
Do you think that if there were a Russian or Chinese investigation or an investigation by any country you care to name, that US citizens who had never been in the country in question could be indicted by that country? Do you believe the US government would accept that?
NOTHING trivial about it. In this case, legal battles will be fought both in the UK and the US. If you are going to consider the fact that something has happened to be trivial in determining whether or not it CAN happen...you are missing the point.
Yes. Definitely.
I do not do "believing"...but if you are asking if it is my opinion that the US government would accept that...under certain circumstances, I do, indeed. The circumstances and treaties would dictate it, but "yeah" they might.
In any case, I think the US authorities expect the UK to extradite Assange to the US for a trial. That may happen...and it may not. The laws of the UK will determine that. And I expect the US to accept the decision of the UK courts.
Sure, what has been leaked may pose some threat to some people who don't belong to these powerful entities, and it can be debated how much of it is Assange's fault and how much it is the fault of those who want to commit crimes and cause suffering with the information presented, but there is a reason the media focus almost entirely on these details rather than on the crimes committed by the powerful entities and those serving them.
Quoting Janus
Do you think he committed a crime? Or not?
I have no idea why you would say I am missing the point. It is trivially true that whatever happens can happen. For me the point is that if whatever happens that is sanctioned by governments and judicial authorities is defined as what is legal, and yet what happens in one instance might not be the same as what happens in another identical instance, whether it is determined by negotiation between the same countries in both instances or between different countries altogether, then it would seem that what is legal is not something fixed by principles of justice at all, but something determined by power and influence. If you feel satisfied with that and supportive of it, then that is your business. personally I find it quite repugnant.
Quoting Frank Apisa
What is the difference between believing that something is so, and being of the opinion that something is so?
Quoting Frank Apisa
Well, that is trivial too. What other options but acceptance do you think the US would have? Trade sanctions? Declaring war?
Of course all these matters are power plays, not examples of some fine principle of justice at work. We may not be able to do much about what goes on at the highest levels of international power relations, but we don't have to like it!
Indeed!
It depends on what you mean by "crime". Is "computer intrusion" a crime regardless of who commits it? If not, and it is only a crime in certain instances or contexts, then what determines that it is a crime in the instances or contexts where it is a crime?
On a different line, do you think Assange is actually being accused of hacking? Aiding and abetting someone else's hacking? Did the someone else have legal access to the files he leaked?
That's right, it's a matter of judgement, and those who make those judgements, by that very capacity, are those who have power and influence..
Quoting Janus
Why is it repugnant to you, that those who make these judgements are those who have power and influence. Doesn't it seem natural to you, that the people who make these sorts of judgements are the people who have power and influence?
If you double down and continue to suppose the laws and decisions of a nation are trivial...not much I can do about it.
So continue to think that. It is an absurd thought as you would discover if you defied those laws and decisions. And of course they are determined by power and influence. That is what people are elected to do...to decide what is legal and what is not so that civilization can thrive. Otherwise everyone would do what they want when they want...and there would be chaos and anarchy.
Use of the word "believe." I do not use that word. Most of the times it doesn't matter, but there are times when it does, so I simply do not use it. I do not do "believing." If I am making a guess, or offering an opinion or estimate...I use the words "guess", "opinion", or "estimate."
Well I guess any country could...and I am sure some countries have declared war.
I doubt that would happen here.
If the UK decides they will not extradite Assange to the US...the US will almost certainly, reluctantly, accept that decision.
I do not care whether you like it or hate it, Janus. It is my opinion that whether you like it or not...is trivial.
A guess or estimate may or may not be an opinion or belief. but call whatever you are doing whatever you like, of course.
If you want to continue to be an unthinking sycophant to entrenched power there are plenty of others to keep you company.
I can't begin to imagine what that remark means. I don't see anyone else here being asked for their personal life history. I'd say I've been more politically active in real life over the years than the average person. By a pretty good margin. I'll leave it at that. What difference does it make what someone says they've done? Where are you coming from here? There's a nasty streak on this forum sometimes.
In many countries it's barely over fifty percent who vote, so saying that you're more politically active than the average person doesn't say much.
You said a mouthful, Cuz.
There's little point in talking about one's personal life on an anonymous forum. I've done a lot more than vote. Out there in the world, in real life. But what is your point?
I made my point. You compared your political activity to "the average person". But the average person only even votes sometimes, so that really doesn't say much. Just being diligent to vote at every election beats the average person "by a pretty good margin".
Does this change anyone's opinion? Do you think journalism should be punishable by death? Why didn't the owner of the New York Times face the death penalty for publishing the Pentagon papers?
Julian Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/assange-indictment.html
“Whatever a patron desires to get published is advertising; whatever he wants to keep out of the paper is news,”
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/01/20/news-suppress/
Then again, if Boris takes the helm - likely - anything could happen.
The possible sentencing of up to 175 years in case of the other charges and the motivation behind them might be reason for a UK judge to refuse extradition as well. The fact a 102 years old law that has never been employed for this purpose is used and the possibly disproportionate sentencing period might lead to extraneous considerations to refuse extradition.
It's interesting that at least two people responded by saying this might make his extradition less likely. There are glass-half-full types around here! Interesting point though. Did the US act too early and thereby make it harder to get their hands on him? We shall see.
The death penalty is a no go in any case but I'm sure they have given assurances they won't pursue it or the extradition request would be stupid. That leaves the sheer amount of years and the extraordinary grounds that might suggest it's politically motivated or disproportionate. Unfortunately, disproportionately is a specific ground for the European Arrest Warrant so you can reason a contrario it doesn't apply to an extradition to the US. So I don't think the chances of UK courts refusing extradition are very high, just that there's a possibility.
A very reasoned and reasonable analysis. I can't disagree with anything, nor could I frame a response at that level of stylish erudition.
And yet ...
I'm disappointed others aren't as outraged as I am. I react viscerally to this case and others seem to impute the US government with good intentions and cleverness or strategic thinking. Of rationality, even of human decency.
I don't share anyone's high regard of the US government in this matter. In other posts I've expressed my intense feelings so I'll just state them here without going in to detail. I'm collecting mainstream opinion about this case, The NYT, WSJ, and even Rachel Maddow are expressing their dismay at this criminalization of standard journalistic practice. A common theme is, "Even if you hate Assange you have to be very concerned about these latest charges, which go right at the heart of the First Amendment."
So I'll just say for the record that I'm impressed by the clarity and insight of all the responses so far; but terribly disappointed at the lack of passionate concern for freedom of expression, the rights of journalists (whether you think Assange is one); and frankly, for Julian Assange. He revealed the US doing truly awful, immoral things as we "brought Democracy" to the world. If you're outraged about Assange's alleged "spying" but unaware of the war crimes he revealed, you should educate yourself about the particulars. Your outrage is misplaced.
If I used the phrase "good Nazis" that would be awfully inflammatory. I don't mean to inflame. What's a more measured phrase that would communicate the idea?. People who don't want to rock the boat. A few weeks ago Rachel Maddow was attacking Assange as part of her Russia Russia Russia schtick. Now that Mueller says no collusion and Maddow's ratings have tanked, she recently gave an impassioned defense of Assange and attack on this awful indictment.
In other words ... this latest indictment has snapped a lot of people to their senses. And Rachel Maddow, welcome back to the world of peace and civil liberties. Too many liberals have gone to the other side the last two years.
It's not like this forum is so intellectually dispassionate. Would the people recently telling me that I should be uniquely outraged because "Trump put kids in cages" and "Trump called Mexicans rapists" and "Trump separated families" please join me in a truly outraged chorus of:
Trump is trying to kill Julian Assange and criminalize journalism.
That's an outrage in opposition to which I'll gladly get out my torch and pitchfork.
But no. On the subject of Assange, everyone is suddenly very measured and rational. As if people want to salvage something from their former state of denial about the government's bad intentions and bad faith in this case.
It seems to me you complain about what people take issue with in the Trump thread and his child separation and the intensity of their disapproval in this thread. Maybe you should start accepting people are different from you, have different views and different values and afford them some measure of respect instead of judging them all the time. It's bloody tiresome.
There's nothing new here, U.S. government agencies have always been doing truly awful things as they attempt to bring democracy to the world, from the blatantly illegal (Iran-contra for example), to the utterly disgusting (Vietnam for example). The WikiLeaks revelations are status quo. If we're not already outraged at all these terrible things which US government agencies do in the name of bringing democracy to the world, why would you think that we should be outraged at what they want to do to Assange?
Why would you think that we would single out this one instance of U.S. government agencies unfairly treating one individual (Assange), and direct outrage at the government for this act? Do you not recognize that in all the "truly awful, immoral things" which the US does, the American people are implicit? That's the nature of the beast (democracy) the government fulfills the will of the people. If Assange has revealed crimes, they are the crimes of the American people, and criminals get mad at those who turn them in.
Good news! You can report on American war crimes and only have your life 3/4s destroyed by it, so long as you're on the verge of suicide, so as to not be thrown into an inhumane prison system!*
*pending appeal.
I'm pretty disgusted with the Australian government's role here - or rather lack thereof.
A British court has said that the US prison system is too inhumane to send someone there. Yep.
As for this, based on the new article it's an interesting decision and I wonder what the grounds for an appeal would be. That our prisons are demonstrably wholesome and nobody commits suicide while incarcerated in them might be difficult to establish. So I imagine there will be some kind of burden of proof, or excess of jurisdiction or authority argument. I may have to read the decision and appeal if they're available, when I have the chance.
Oops. It's not invisible on my side. It was a song by Aaron Neville called Angola Bound.
Bye bye democracy. You used to be cool. Now you're all like lame and old and stupid. Hello totalitarianism. Oh noes you suck even worse than old and lame democracy...
I don't think these type of things threaten our democracies but rather reveal how our democracies were never really as transparent as we want to believe they are. Assange and his collaborators just put a spotlight on it and they're now being made an example of.
:100: :sad:
Hypocrisy as art.
Quoting Agent Smith
Yeah, don't think it any further, 'cause you will get hurt.
:up:
:up:
Peasant. :sweat:
As for Russia, it’s completely understandable why they preferred Trump over Clinton, but in terms of the direction American Foreign Policy took, the evidence is overwhelming that Trump Administration’s overall foreign policy was more hawkish towards Russia than his predecessor. Breaking arms treaties, to arms sells to Ukraine, adding on sanctions, to NATO enlargement. Not hard to google “Trump was more hawkish towards Russia”. Russia wanted Trump to be Putin’s puppet but that’s not how he turned out.
As for Assange, what I think of him personally outside the election thing, he’s not like Chelsea Manning. He showed himself to be an asshole and increasingly political reactionary on social media, but some of that could have partly been the result of being not in the right state of mind being couped up under house arrest. I’m not in a position to judge as I didn’t sacrifice myself for political causes. (EDIT: There's that whole leaking innocent people's personal information scandal which is pretty bad)
Assange did something noble. Look where he landed up. Too, where are the mass protests, the demonstrations demanding his freedom? Something's off, don't you think? Assange is alone, he made the rookie mistake of believing people care about the truth. No they don't!
Keep it up please :)
Helping gulag autocrats further subvert corrupt, even failing, faux-democracies is "noble"? :brow:
I wasn't aware of that facet of the Assange leaks. Anyway, it doesn't look like you have a good argument. Should I keep my mouth shut about one tyrant because what I say might help another tyrant? That's what evil does to you. You're forced to look the other way and act like nothing's happened/is happening. Tough choices for someone who's in the truth/transparency business. These guys/girls need all the help they can get! Anyone?
What "argument"? I've only stated the obvious. Google "wikileaks" and the "2016 US elections". The facts are not in dispute.
Assange's exposé led to foreign (Russian) interference in USA? Assange's plan, if he had one (seems unlikely), backfired. If an American kills an American, it's ok but if a Russian kills an American, it's not ok!
Thanks for the advice. I'm working on it but no real strategy. Doing things on the fly - a book here, a video there, some pseudo-thinking between them when I have time to spare.
See ya!
If your system is so fucked-up that leaks of documents that practically no one outside of a small circle of interests have ever read apart from the cliff notes - by some Australian nobody with exactly zero institutional power - than that system perhaps ought to be sunk to begin with.
Although no doubt the relays of manufactured consent will still think they are doing anything other than regurgitating prepared scripts from those in power.
I think he's something of an ass, myself. That said, he should have been allowed to go to Ecuador long ago, after it granted him asylum.
I suppose the Ecuador ship has sailed, or its train has left the station, or whatever the appropriate phrase may be, but I think that's what was appropriate given the governing law as I understand it. I'm not sure whether he'd be better off there than where he is now under these circumstances, in any case.
This is a nice way to put it. What the US is doing to Assange is just a more drawn out version of what Saudi Arabia did to Jamal Khashoggi. Both victims of a brutal regime happy to crush dissent and anyone that would make them look like the violent monsters they are.
"The U.S.-centralized power alliance is murdering a journalist, as surely as the Saudi regime murdered Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. The only difference is that Khashoggi was killed quickly by live dismemberment via bone saw while Assange is being killed slowly by lawfare".
And even that is putting it too nicely considering that it's open news that the CIA looked into assassinating Assange anyway. The ultimate sign that you're probably doing some good in the world. The US is just a painted over Saudi Arabia.
:100: :up:
Flag it for what?
Probably the same thing that is going to happen to Trump. :wink:
If you can't tell the difference between an effort to bring someone to justice and a farcical showtrial to gloss over attempts to silence journalism then you disqualify yourself from reasonable discussion.
You'd have to have a farcical showtrial first, before you could tell. Well, unless you have a crystal ball. I mean, it's not like he's been gutted and carved up yet.
Psychologically, he's been given the full discipline and punish treatment. But, sure, they won't be allowed to waterboard him. Probably.
Yeah, it's a real Novichok situation for him. No due process of law.
Yes, indeed. Likewise one would need to actually be eaten before one could really predict the outcome of jumping into the lion enclosure. So hard to tell...it's 50/50 between a powerless journalist being imprisoned for literally anything they can pin on him or the most powerful government in the world conceding to an open and frank discussion of their war crimes...a real tough call...all to play for!
I guess he should have done what journalist do these days, and prove his neutrality. LOL! I'm glad he dished on the U.S., but I think he's been sucking Putin's dick. So there's that.
It may be a digression from the thread, but I have questions about how one on the inside of the house should perceive the critiques coming from the outside. Critiques about how the house conducts itself in-house, and how it conducts itself outside, in the rest of the world.
For instance, there are many legitimate critiques about U.S. internal and foreign conduct. I agree with many of those critiques. But when does it go beyond mere critique and enter into the realm of actively inciting division within the house for the purpose of seeing it fall; and not for the benefit of the oppressed internal or external victims? When does it cross over to actual aid and comfort to a less magnanimous actor?
I understand that an outside actor might think that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but you'd think they would have some concern about the friend they are getting in bed with. Especially when that friend has a proven record of being much worse on the issues of concern to them.
If someone with legitimate critiques of my house wants to fashion himself my enemy, do I ignore him? As a gnat to my infinite and impressive power? Or do I deflate his concerns by entertaining them, and trying to address them? How do I distinguish between him and my real enemy, that would seek my downfall?
If those within my house start to divide, and take sides with an external actor who sews division within my house, should I become the oppressor they said I was all along, so they can say to the world "I told you so!"? Or should I fall by being the better angel of my of my nature? Should I let them have what they pray for? Is that a false dilemma?
At this point, I am inclined to perceive the external, non-state actor as a gnat: ignore here, swat there. Maybe even sew a little discord with the external state actor. Give them some of their own medicine, which they perceive themselves as giving me. Let the ultimate measure be the demonstrations of tolerance and magnanimity toward gnats. Is that the burden of the powerful?
P.S. Comparing his situation to getting eaten by lions, well, that's like comparing it to Khashoggi.
I'm sure the Saudis thought they "brought to justice" Khashoggi as well. Of course, if you count the years of effective imprisonment without trial - a pretty standard human rights abuse - resulting in Assange's psycological deteriorization and his recent stroke - the grotesque murder is simply happening in slow motion, and all the more sickening for it. If you can't recognize a murderous, illigitimate regime acting to persecute journalists for exposing its warcrimes then you're no better than some Saudi propagandist.
That's on him. He could have had better due process of law, right away, in the U.S. (and a zealous defender) than most places, like your mentor Putin.
Metaphorically, the United States speaking to the opposition (loyal or otherwise)?
"I've seen horrors... horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that... but you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror... Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies! I remember when I was with Special Forces... seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate some children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn't know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it... I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God... the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we, because they could stand that these were not monsters, these were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men, our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment! Because it's judgment that defeats us."
Col. Kurtz, Apocalypse Now.
If you want to play the nationalist, populist game, that is fine. Everything has some merit. But you might want to make sure the king you strike really needs to die; that he isn't just a flawed entity, working on himself; asking for your honest input. Is his progress too slow for your liking? Maybe, but be careful what you wish for. You better have an alternative waiting in the wings; an alternative that can and will do better. Otherwise, I'll shed no tears to see your little arm in a pile. If you are just sniping from the cheap seats, you are a combatant. It's a rough life for a cloistered critic, offering nothing but critique. When you start comparing Khashoggi to Assange, you’re shaping a battle space you may not want to be in. But yeah, gnats. Remember, they’re just gnats. And . . . Putin. Poor little Putin. Just another one of the oppressed.
P.S. Hey Julian, where are the Pee Tapes? LOL!
Lol
Laugh at Saudis ripping you apart. Laugh a Putin, poisoning you. Laugh at a colosseum full of lions, ripping you apart. Now I know your colors. Thanks for the reveal.
Ah yes, I too take official statements of murderous regimes to be reflective of what they are really thinking. I mean if the Saudis didn't say something then *gasp* it can't be true!
The Saudi judicial system is not an institution you ever want to come into remote contact with.
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/saudi-arabia#:~:text=Saudi%20authorities%20in%202019%20continued,rights%20activists%2C%20and%20independent%20clerics.&text=Most%20of%20the%20women%20faced,Arabia's%20discriminatory%20male%20guardianship%20system.
"Saudi authorities ... continued to repress dissidents, human rights activists, and independent clerics.
.... opened individual trials of prominent Saudi women before the Riyadh Criminal Court and dismissed all allegations that the women faced torture or ill-treatment in detention. Most of the women faced charges that were solely related to peaceful human rights work, including promoting women’s rights and calling for an end to Saudi Arabia’s discriminatory male guardianship system.
Prosecutors also accused the women of sharing information about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia with journalists based in Saudi Arabia, diplomats, and international human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, deeming such contacts a criminal offense....
Saudi prosecutors in 2019 continued to seek the death penalty against detainees on charges that related to nothing more than peaceful activism and dissent."
As for Saudi Arabia, it's a medieval theocracy. The murder of Adnan Kashoggi and its coverup ought to put that beyond any reasonable doubt.
Yes. Wiki is essentially a mail drop box service.
Quoting Wayfarer
And conveniently overlooked during the appallingly named War on Terror.
https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/assange-is-not-a-journalist-yes-he-is-idiot-761fa437269f
"Yes he is. Publishing relevant information so the public can inform themselves about what’s going on in their world is the thing that journalism is. Which is why Assange was just awarded the GUE/NGL Award for “Journalists, Whistleblowers and Defenders of the Right to Information” the other day, why the WikiLeaks team has racked up many prestigious awards for journalism, and why Assange is a member of Australia’s media union. Only when people started seriously stressing about the very real threats that his arrest poses to press freedoms did it become fashionable to go around bleating “Assange is not a journalist.”
This argument is a reprisal of a statement made by Trump’s then-CIA director Mike Pompeo, who proclaimed that WikiLeaks is not a journalistic outlet at all but a “hostile non-state intelligence service”, a designation he made up out of thin air... So they’re already regurgitating propaganda narratives straight from the lips of the Trump administration, but more importantly, their argument is nonsense. As I discuss in the essay hyperlinked here, once the Assange precedent has been set by the US government, the US government isn’t going to be relying on your personal definition of what journalism is; they’re going to be using their own, based on their own interests.
The next time they want to prosecute someone for doing anything similar to what Assange did, they’re just going to do it, regardless of whether you believe that next person to have been a journalist or not. It’s like these people imagine that the US government is going to show up at their doorstep saying “Yes, hello, we wanted to imprison this journalist based on the precedent we set with the prosecution of Julian Assange, but before doing so we wanted to find out how you feel about whether or not they’re a journalist.”
--
The idea that the American destruction of Assange has any more legitimacy than the Saudi destruction of Kashoggi is what happens when one has swallowed so much propaganda that one jumps to the defense of a country emabrrased for murdering people overseas. It is not an 'accident' or 'unfortunate' the the US and Saudis are best friends. They operate out of the same playbook, attend each other parties, and laugh while they kill journalists. They're both irredeemable pieces of international shit deserving of each other.
Have people forgotten that American "justice" is a literal public health hazard to its own minorities and that if you're rich and white you can get away with rape and murder on the regular? A pay-to-win system with a sheen only barely brighter then Saudi mud.
Thanks for this.
Those no-good rascals, Amnesty International, concur:
Quoting Amnesty International
In any case, has any one of those agents died due to the publication of the documents? If you do something that might cause someone's death and someone dies then it might at most be a manslaughter charge. If no one dies then there would be no charge.
[Url=https://m-scoop-co-nz.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/m.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO2002/S00171/debunking-the-smear-that-assange-recklessly-published-unredacted-documents.htm?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16395378850786&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scoop.co.nz%2Fstories%2FWO2002%2FS00171%2Fdebunking-the-smear-that-assange-recklessly-published-unredacted-documents.htm]source[/url]
"The prosecution in the Assange extradition trial has falsely alleged that WikiLeaks recklessly published unredacted files in 2011 which endangered people's lives. In reality the Pentagon admitted that no one was harmed as a result of the leaks during the Manning trial, and the unredacted files were actually published elsewhere as the result of a Guardian journalist recklessly included a real password in a book about WikiLeaks.
A key government witness during the Chelsea Manning trial, Brig. Gen. Robert Carr, testified under oath that no one was hurt by them. Additionally, the Defense Secretary at the time, Robert M Gates, said that the leaks were "awkward" and "embarrassing" but the consequences for US foreign policy were "fairly modest". It was also leaked at the time that insiders were saying the damage was limited and "containable", and they were exaggerating the damage in an attempt to get Manning punished more severely.
As Assange's defense highlighted during the trial, the unredacted publications were the result of a password being published in a book by Guardian reporters Luke Harding and David Leigh, the latter of whom worked with Assange in the initial publications of the Manning leaks. WikiLeaks reported that it didn't speak publicly about Leigh's password publication for several months to avoid drawing attention to it, but broke its silence when they learned a German weekly called Freitag was preparing a story about it. There's footage of Assange calling the US State Department trying to warn of an imminent security breach at the time, but they refused to escalate the call
The attempts to smear Assange as reckless, cold and cavalier with the Manning leaks have been forcefully disputed by an Australian journalist named Mark Davis, who was following Assange closely at the time filming footage which would become the documentary Inside WikiLeaks.
...Davis details how The Guardian, the New York Times, and Der Spiegel journalists were putting Assange under extreme pressure to go to press before Assange had finished redacting names from the documents. None of the outlets offered any resources or support to help redact them, and Assange had to pull an all-nighter himself and personally cleanse the logs of over 10,000 names before going live."
--
Basically almost everything published by the mainstream press and parroted by useful idiots like certain members of this board - @180Proof and @Wayfarer, to name names - is a lie
Cheers.
Here's what has upset the US:
Keep this in mind. It's the release of this video that is a the core of this issue.
Can't wait till some moron pipes up about how Amensty has actually been infiltrated by Russians or what fantasy liberals like to cook up in their heads.
Didn't know that. I'll take it into account. As I've already said, I favour leniency for Assange and hope he gets it, but Wikileaks was in no way a journalistic enterprise, it was an anonymous drop folder.
1. The Russians have plenty of willing allies and useful idiots doing their work for them;
2. None of these so-called journalists are spilling on the Russians;
3. No one spills on the Russians because the Russians don't offer U.S. due process of law. Like the Saudis, they just fucking kill you;
4. Meanwhile, all the gnats in the cheap seats cheer and laugh while the one they perceive as a bully gets his due. Go, Putin, Go!
It's a spectator sport for those who haven't seen the horror.
It chose what to publish, with editorial control. Even the NYT has a goddamn tip line. You're just parroting what you've heard from American power, nothing more.
Journalist or not - irrelevant.
"there can be no liberty for a community which lacks the means by which to detect lies”
– Walter Lippmann
This is about what is most important in differentiating democracy from tyranny: the capacity to self-correct. Democracy must allow criticism. Even if on takes the view that Collateral Murder is biased against the US and does not show the full story, it is of the utmost importance to a democracy to be able to openly discuss incidents that are embarrassing.
Tragically, the US is a failed democracy. The continuing persecution of Assange is as much a symptom of this collapse as the occupation of the Capitol.
None of this is relevant. A Democracy needs to know what it is doing. Assange did the USA a favour.
Quoting Banno
I refuse to believe that. It is true that American democracy is under threat and if it really is brought undone by those vicious hypocritical bastards on the Right. then it will be a dark day in history. But it's not here yet.
I know it's tragic.
But the hypocrisy of claiming to be defenders of free speech while persecuting its critics speaks volumes.
"We hit me back first." ? WTF does that mean?
Quoting Banno
I know he did. I don't have a problem with that. What's relevant is the useful idiots doing Putin's work for him. You know, like Assange and his apologists. If he wants cred then he'd spill on Russia, China, et al. And if his apologists wanted cred they would not compare U.S. due process with Saudi or Russian "due process." You'd have to be a fucking idiot to think there is any kind of comparison.
'Free speech' is not absolute. Wikileaks is hiding behind it, taking advantage of democratic freedoms, but not observing any of the conventions which hold the framework together.
You can imagine what would happen if any Russian citizen tried what Assange had done, in Russia. Putin would have no need to bother with the niceties of detention and trial.
SOo you would charge Assange with "not reporting on China and Russia".
Yeah, that works. Not. It's just looking for excuses. And in so doing one is excusing the destruction of what is left of the trust that is needed in oder to restore Democracy.
Again, a democracy needs to know when it has gone wrong. It's that capacity to self-referentialy correct itself that marks it as different to tyranny.
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting Wayfarer
As if on cue.
Nevermind, of course, that Assange literally had to tell the 'official' papers to hold off on publishing while he redacted names.
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/04/20/debunking-all-the-assange-smears/
Again, people like Wayfarer will excuse war crimes and the murder of innocents because 'not done by the book'.
The events of "Collateral Murder" allow us to understand why the US is so hated in the middle east. It provided an opportunity for correcting an error. Lost, now, I'm affraid.
Like I said, I don't have a problem with that. I once had a vision of Wikileaks being a world-wide clearing house, unaccountable to any state, dishing all that dirt on all sides, everywhere. But. not so much. Huh? So you'd have to go back a read my spiels, above, to remind yourself of the battle space that some choose to insert themselves into. Big boy rules.
You would charge Assange with "not reporting on China and Russia".
Of course. If say the NY Times or Washington Post had accessed those sources and published classified information, do you think the editor of those journals would face criminal sanction? Or that Wikileaks is being singled out somehow?
I can see your misplaced and subjective disappointment. But where is the disingenuousness? Are you calling me a liar?
Quoting Banno
Yes, I would. Not only that, but for failure to look for or spill all the shit he had. He's a partisan if he ignores what he was given. I'm sure spooky tunes fed him information on his handlers, but we didn't see that, now did we?
No, not a liar. I think you are kidding yourself. Here: Quoting James Riley
Your argument is not against Wikileaks, but in favour of a better Wikileaks. Yep.
Given how Assange has been treated by those nations that supposedly defend and foster open discussion, do you think it likely that there will be folk willing to stand up against Russia or China?
Do you think prosecuting Assange in this way encourages such reporting?
That's what I find disingenuous.
- NY Times etc would not publish classified information as this is illegal. A large part of Wikileaks rationale is to provide a medium through which journalists working at those organisations can release such information and remain protected by anonymity.
- As Wikileaks purportedly has the final say on what is published, then that makes them a publisher. If the site was truly anonymous, i.e. nobody vetted anything that was put on there, then they could deny being a publisher, but the fact that they review material prior to it being released effectively means they're publishing, 'making public', that information.
Being disingenuous is different than kidding oneself. It's not being genuine. You're kidding yourself if you think states are going to sit around and let you dish for one side against them.
Quoting Banno
:100: Yep! I never said my argument was against Wikileaks. And indeed, I was in favor of a better one. Didn't I say something about a world clearing house? But that didn't happen, now did it? No disingenuousness there. Just fact.
Quoting Banno
Actually, there were. But they're dead or in a gulag. You'd think if Assange had a little courage like they had, he could use his trial as a showcase in a democracy. But he was a tool and it was never about getting the truth out. It was taking the low hanging fruit and punching an easy target that, at most, might put you in country club. Hell, he probably could have cut a deal by spilling on his handlers. But then he'd be a marked man. Maybe wit pro? Maybe even a sex change operation on the state's nickel, but only if he wanted one.
Quoting Banno
Actually, yes. Especially prosecuting him in this way. There are plenty of people out there facing worse, and going back into the flames. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. I mean, it's not like we are gutting him, or poisoning him. We are giving him a podium.
Torture is indeed effective. I'll leave you to it, then.
So now you are arguing he's getting water-boarded or enhanced interrogation at Gitmo? First I've heard of it. I don't think you know what torture is. But maybe you confuse Khashoggi with due process?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
No. Nothing so unsubtle.
Do tell. Maybe you could leak us the truth about his torture. Who told you? Putin?
Empathy can't be taught. I'll read that last post of yours as being about you, and leave you to your own devices.
1. In anticipation of better from you, I did a quick search and saw the alleged "psychological" torture.
2. I noticed he's not in U.S. custody. So there's that. Here he'd be on easy street and he'd probably be out by now after community service; or found not guilty. :lol:
Except the people who did publish were precisely papers like Der Spiegel and so on. This make you wrong, or a liar.
So which is it, are they journos or not? Or does their designation as journos turn on your personal whim as to what is convenient for you as the wind blows?
P.S. Empathy would be with the victims of those who don't provide due process to their own.
In that regard the Australian Government is culpable. They could end this vey quickly if they so chose.
Yeah, let's point our fingers at any easy target. No sense doing the hard work. That's dangerous.
Yes. Your mistake is treating people's lives as if they're the plot of 'Top Gun'. There's no 'your house'/'my house'. America is made mostly of people (who suffer from the oppression of their government), Australia likewise is populated by human beings who suffer at the hands of a disgraceful government and its corporate sponsors. The rest of the world's people suffer likewise (though often at the hands of the US than their own governments). People. All the same people. Not Russians vs Americans. Not your house vs my house.
Whatever his personal motives, Assange highlighted actions which, if allowed to continue, would harm people. Sending the message that such actions will be severely punished by governments the world over will harm people. There's no us vs. them except in the storyline they want you to swallow. But then your proclivity for swallowing simplistic us vs. them narratives you're fed so that you can play out your John Wayne fantasy has been noted before.
2. Assange & Anti-vaxxers? What's the connection?
I'm guessing they just want information about how Russia contacted him. The hacking charge is pretty minor.
First, thank you for being the only person who tried (even if you failed) to take a stab at my question. That said, talk about a simplistic view of the world! First you try to imply a "we are the world" group of people, but then the U.S. government is the bogy man (Top Gun, pun intended, get it? No? Never mind) out there undermining what would otherwise be kumbaya. :roll:
Your silly view of the situation is is just another "us vs them" argument, only you try to wrangle the world into your remuda to defend it against the evil governments.
I assumed my original, honest question was not answered because it is a very hard question. Quite simply, when all I see is unmitigated hatred and sniping against my government (warranted or not),I want to know if the sniper is sincerely trying to help, of if he is an agent for one of those other governments? Look at it from my point of view: We not only have Assange and Street coming out of Australia, but you've also blessed the world with Rupert Murdoch. What I'm seeing here is white nationalism. Especially when you throw Putin into the mix.
So, as a naïve noob in these matters of international concern that you seem to be such an expert on, how is a simpleton like me supposed to know your intentions toward me are good? Are you sewing discord and division in the U.S. as part of a plot to destroy the U.S.? Or are you just a good guy, trying to help us see the error of our ways? You know, some kind of self-improvement guru?
Were the insurrectionist of January 6th on the right track? Was Trump on the right track? Is the fall of the U.S. and the rise of China a good thing? Or are you just trying to help the U.S. by pointing out how fucking corrupt and rotten and evil it is? "Shed a little sun light, disinfect with the truth, and the U.S. too can join the world campfire!"
How is a simple American supposed to know? That's my simple question.
Now you may say that I'm not entitled to an answer, or that the burden is not upon you to exonerate yourself before my non-existent jurisdiction. And that's true. You don't have to answer the question. But as far as my non-existent family in my non-existent house is concerned, if you fail to prove you're not in bed with nationalists, then you are one. Ironic, huh? I mean here you want to view the people of the world as innocent victims of government, yet your failure to prove your bonafides supports government. And all because you can't answer the question: How do I know you are good when all I hear is how fucking rotten and evil my country is? And what happens to credibility when what is happening to Assange is equated with the fate of Khashoggi? Poor stupid me just doesn't know what to do! Evil government misleading me on the one hand, and then there's you. Decisions, decisions.
P.S. You know, as I said before about a world clearing house, that would have moved us closer to what you purport to want. But it didn't happen. Hmmm. I wonder why? I think somebody picked a side. If that's the case, then fuck him.
I guess we'll see.
OK, I'll be more blunt. The answer is it doesn't matter one jot. Your government, their government...what does it matter? You owe your government nothing, you owe no enmity to the other. That's the us vs them to which I was referring.
Quoting James Riley
I've made no greater a claim than you, we're all just giving opinions here, or did you think that yours came along with labels on?
Quoting James Riley
Quoting James Riley
Quoting James Riley
Quoting James Riley
...and I'm the one who's comments are apparently suffused with pretensions to expertise!
Quoting James Riley
You can't. You've already ruled out 'doing your own research', you've ruled out listening to dissenting voices in any areas other than those in which you are an expert. You've blindfolded and gagged yourself, so do whatever your government says, it's the only option you've got left.
Quoting Isaac
And yet you fail to learn your lessons and you can't teach me anything? I've asked you to teach me, but you can't: proof:
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
No, I'm doing my research now, asking you: How do I tell? But you say I can't tell. So, I either trust you, who can't learn any lessons or teach anything, or I trust my government. I trust my own eyes and what I see happening to my country. Seems like my government is telling me the truth when they say their are subversives and useful idiots out there doing Putin's work for him, and pushing an agenda of white nationalism.
So, since you have nothing, and can't answer my question, that leaves me to use my own suppositions about you, Street, Assange, Murdoch, Trump, Putin, et el.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Any body else want to tell me how I can tell the difference between those who want to help democracy with transparency, and those who want to take it down for a Russian agenda?
Manning was sentenced to 35 years. When the corrupt US justice system investigates, charges, and sentences someone under The Espionage Act, it is no joke. The history of the act itself is littered with free speech and human rights abuses.
By any moral measure, not only did Assange do nothing wrong, he was doing good. The United States government, it’s allies in Europe, are the bad guys in this affair.
Meh. Like I said, Big Boy Rules apply. (Well, in Manning's case, Big Girl Rules Apply. How would that have happened in any country but the U.S.? Kind of contradicts your assessment of the system, doesn't it?) Besides, I'm still looking for an answer to my question: How do I know what you say is true? After all, you are no fan of ANY government. So I'm still looking for a marker I can use to guide me. And even if what you say is "truth", it's just another tool when proponents are selective about the reveal. How come you folks aren't ripping on Russia and China, et al?
Quoting NOS4A2
Yeah? Ask Khashoggi and all the Putin poison pin cushions if the Espionage Act is a joke.
Teaching is a collaborative, not a combative activity.
Quoting James Riley
How does it 'seem like...' they're telling the truth? Do their words come out with glitter on?
Quoting James Riley
Ha!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/07/is-america-a-democracy-if-so-why-does-it-deny-millions-the-vote
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/24/us-world-democracy-rankings-freedom-house-new-low
Quoting https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/02/which-are-the-worlds-strongest-democracies/
:rofl:
Quoting Isaac
And yours? You are making my point. How to tell, how to tell. Crickets.
Regarding your cites: They make my case. I see the white nationalist agenda and the division long before Trump. Trump was just Putin's bitch.
Quoting https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/02/which-are-the-worlds-strongest-democracies/
Yeah, I wonder why? DOH! No thanks to the nationalist populist conservative Republican useful idiots of Putin.
For me it’s a matter of conscience. Weigh the good (the exposure of war crimes, transparency, knowledge of how the govt. spends our money, election meddling) with the bad (not sure what the bad is). If I ask myself if Assange deserves this treatment the answer is clearly “no”.
Well, that's an honest answer. Thanks. I guess for the bad, you would look at all the countries that do not give Assange counter-parts any due process of law, at all. Well, unless their law considers what they got "due process." But I don't hear anyone whining about that. Thus my curiosity.
Anyway, my power keeps going on and off so I'm going to shut off the computer till the storm blows over. In the meantime, if anyone has any constructive ideas on how I am to tell a gnat from an agent provocateur, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I'll be left to doing what I perceive a lot of people here doing: Considering the source and the hyperbolic language that they use.
RIP to all those who didn't get notice and an opportunity to be heard before being killed or sent to a gulag.
After four years of this:
we no longer have the ability to be embarrassed.
EDIT: since I understnd that "save face" can be taken in two different senses: to redeem yourself, and to appear to redeem yourself, I want to note that I meant the former, which should subsume the latter. The latter, however does not necessarily, or even often, include the former.
Not really. We're not fucking Japanese (except the ones who are).
You're not making much sense.
I can recognize that Putin's 'justice' system sucks, but still criticize political BS like charging Assange under the Espionage Act. To argue, implicitly or explicitly, that we should not criticize our government if there are superpowers that are worse is apologetics for those factions within the US that wants to be able to do what Putin and the CCP can.
How can I tell whether you are actually concerned about justice and fair use of power, or actually you are someone who wants to transform the US system into something Putin's Russia or CCP China?
Yep - that Assange put exactly zero people in danger - for reporting on American war crimes - is not at issue. It's about sending a message, as the mafia say. And US is nothing if not a mafia operation. Challenges to American power - which at this point is abusive by definition - will not be tolerated. Anyone else who dares do similar things will be ruined and have their lives destroyed.
I wouldn't bother. James is a conspiracist loon whose paranoia is beneath address.
:100: And our (Australian) gaggle of complicit idiots and shysters are not much better; all they lack is the degree of power.
Kind of like how you respond to anyone who dares to differ with you.
There's good news and bad news.
For Julian, I am thrilled. I've been hoping for his freedom for years. Few of us could have stood up to his five year incarceration, preceded by seven years holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Julian Assange is tonight a free man, and I am glad for that.
The bad news is that the US has established the precedent that journalism is espionage. That's a step down a slippery slope that few of us are going to like. Every journalist in the world got the message today. Reveal the US government's crimes and they destroy your life. A lot of other governments in the "free world" too. Forget that pesky First Amendment and the notion of a free press.
Assange did exactly what the New York Times did in the Pentagon Papers case. He was treated a lot differently, and the world of mainstream journalism deserted him and hung him out to dry. When you're declared an enemy of the state, few will stand up for principle at the cost of being seen defending you.
Today even the Times, the voice of the establishment, agreed with the risk of this deal to press freedom.
Assange’s Plea Deal Sets a Chilling Precedent, but It Could Have Been Worse
The deal brings an ambiguous end to a legal saga that has jeopardized the ability of journalists to report on military, intelligence or diplomatic information that officials deem secret
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/us/politics/assange-plea-deal-press-freedom.html
From the Times:
The agreement means that for the first time in American history, gathering and publishing information the government considers secret has been successfully treated as a crime. This new precedent will send a threatening message to national security journalists, who may be chilled in how aggressively they do their jobs because they will see a greater risk of prosecution.
I am a bit surprised at this take. The Times has not been outspoken in Assange's defense as far as I know, but I admit I haven't followed their coverage over the years.
Well I'm happy for Julian Assange tonight, and I'm sad they put another big dent in the First amendment and the public's right to know about government malfeasance.
Quoting 180 Proof
:mask:
The question that nags at me, however, is ‘is Wikileaks a bona fide media organisation’, and can what it does be described as journalism? Consider the Chelsea Manning documents, and the related but separate Ed Snowden leaks. Both of these were conducted by employees of an organisation who had presumably signed a contract requiring them to observe the confidentiality and secrecy of the documents that they leaked. Apart from anything else, they broke that contract.
If these materials had been made available to a mainstream media organisation, such as the New York Times, would that organisation have published them? I presume not, as they would be aware of the penalties involved for divulging confidential and top-secret information.
The theory behind Wikileaks, as I understand it, is that it is supposed to be a publicly-available repository into which anonymous users are able to post whatever information they choose, with no editorial oversight or interference from the Wikileaks organisation. But no bona fide media organisation would provide such a facility, for fairly obvious reasons.
I feel that a genuine distinction is being lost amidst the smoke and heat. Of course the crimes which Wikileaks exposed deserve to be exposed, and governments ought not to use secrecy as a shield for wrong-doing, which they inveterately will. It’s a balance of ‘right to know’ vs ‘need for confidentiality’. But then how much ‘transparency’ could be expected from, for example, the CCP, or from Russia? Presumably if one of Assange’s counterparts had hacked and leaked information from the Russian FSB - well, he or she would face a fate much worse than legal threats, and we in the West would probably never even know their name.
And beyond whether he’s a journalist, he’s a symbol - a symbol of the struggle against the mendacious corrupt establishment and the lies and coverups of the military-industrial complex. For which reason, criticize him at your peril :yikes:
Gift link to Washington Post wrap on his release.
https://www.walkleys.com/board-statement-4-16/
I wonder if A will be alive this time next year. No doubt he now has a platform beyond even the dreams of Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan. It will be interesting to see what happens next.
Hmm.
https://wikileaks.org/-Leaks-.html
This NY Times piece, by independent film-maker Alex Gibney, sums up the kinds of issues many had with Assange, prior to his long incarceration (gift link).
They published and presented important information to the public, so they were obviously a media organization. Who decides what criteria counts as 'bona fide" in that context?
You seem to sit in judgment of Assange, yet you have not said what crime you think he committed.
That's the question I'm asking. I did comment that the NY Times, Guardian, etc, would probably not have published classified documents stolen from military organisations, although after Wikileaks did so, they were then able to reference them, as they had been put in the public domains.
I doubt that would happen to a large media organization that published leaked documents. Do you have any evidence to support the claim that it would happen?
The difference for me is that when a large media corporation decides to publish in a way that is strongly contrary to government interests, they are prepared to fight the legal battles required to back that decision (e.g. Watergate). Assange was obviously playing a dangerous game, and it has cost him. I actually don't see how you can publish this sort of thing without incurring a backlash. Perhaps it is only a question of whether and in what form you are able to handle that backlash.
Maybe the fact that they didn't! Ever see that excellent Speilberg movie with Meryl Streep as Katherine Graham, owner of the Washington Post, over the publication of the Pentagon papers? The Post. Gave a good overview of the dangers involved.
Quoting Leontiskos
More or less 'publish and be damned'. And he was!
What a good example of double standards.
If a reporter is revealing something about adversary it's OK, but if it touches us then it's not OK.
Who didn't do what? I haven't seen the movie you mentioned. so I'm not clear what "dangers" you are referring to. According to the information I have Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the papers. was initially charged with theft of government documents, espionage and conspiracy. but the charges were subsequently dismissed, while the New York Times, who first brought the attention of the papers to the public, was not charged with anything. So, I'm not at all sure as to what you are referring to.
Have a read of this:
I meant, I don't have evidence of it, because the 'large media organisations' would generally be extremely careful about publishing such materials, if at all. That's what I meant by them not doing it.
As for the general question, it's obviously a delicate balance. I already said:
Quoting Wayfarer
At the time Wikileaks leaked the Democratic National Committee files, there were strong grounds for believing that these had been fed to them by Russia in an attempt to have Trump elected. Indeed, when Assange's release was announced, one of the Putin stooge outlets commended Assange for his 'great service to journalism'. You can bet it would have been vastly different had he leaked, say, top secret information on Russian war planning for the Ukraine invasion. Assange might have expected a dose of novichok instead of congrats.
Can you provide a link to reliable information backing that claim up?
I haven't claimed that no action has ever been taken against those involved with leaking documents. Perhaps you are right about private settlements or non-legal consequences. Can you cite any evidence to support that speculation, or any cases that remotely resemble the US treatment of Julian Assange?
I think @Wayfarer has been making good points. The Watergate scandal and the related film that Wayfarer has mentioned is one example ("The Post"). If you look at the prominent court cases relating to laws like the Espionage Act or the Sedition Act other examples can be found (e.g. the Schenck or Abrams cases). As even your article notes, Obama was quite aggressive on this front.
But the point here is that the speculation is yours, not mine. It is extremely counterintuitive to claim that leaking classified documents results in no consequences, or that the government has no interest in addressing or punishing such leaks. I don't know where such a theory would even come from. Everyone who engages in these leaks takes extreme caution to try to counteract the dangers they are inviting.
I haven't claimed that the leaker of such information would not be prosecuted, I believe they almost certainly would be, but I'm questioning the claim that news outlets that published such leaked documents would be prosecuted. I'm also wondering whether any such leaks have been published by news media and if that has occurred whether they were prosecuted. I can research that myself if no one provides ready information, but I don't have time right now.
"DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
The mission of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
"The DOJ is made up of 40 component organizations, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Attorney General is the head of the DOJ and chief law enforcement officer of the federal government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters, advises the President and the heads of the executive departments of the government, and occasionally appears in person before the Supreme Court.
"With a budget of approximately $25 billion, the DOJ is the world’s largest law office and the central agency for the enforcement of federal laws."
Nobody in the US takes the DOJ lightly. No one should.
Is it the case that media outlets have never published leaked government documents? If it is not the case and leaked dicuments have been published, were the publishers prosecuted?
Yes, the NY Times published leaked documents. No, they weren't prosecuted.
Assange is not a beneficiary of any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It would have been cool if he had stood up for the idea of a global free press. In doing so, he might have inspired his own country to make that right official. I guess he had personal issues that made that impossible?
The claim that the publishing of personal details of many operatives put them at significant risk is weakened by the fact that apparently none of them suffered on that account. It is arguable that Assange was negligent in not redacting those personal details, and he could perhaps have been held to account if one of the any of the operatives had suffered injury or death, but people are generally not prosecuted for negligence unless that negligence causes personal harm.
Quoting frank
I would have thought that rights guaranteed by the constitution apply to all individuals and corporations without prejudice. If Assange is not entitled to those rights on account of not being a citizen of the US, then it would seem to be inconsistent to claim that he should be subject to US law.
I imagine that Assange does stand for the idea of a global free press. Is there anything that leads you to think otherwise?
That’s what Assange’s supporters say, but the truth can’t be known. Many of those whose names were disclosed were in places like Iraq and Afghanistan where record-keeping is hardly exemplary.
Again it’s a balance of press freedom versus the right of governments to keep secrets, and it will always be a difficult balance. Unless of course the whole world decides to lay down arms, cease all conflict, turn their swords into ploughshares and join hands to sing Kumbaya.
Life isn't fair.
True that!
Doesn't matter, you need evidence in order to prosecute.
Quoting Wayfarer
It's not really a matter of that. I agree that publishing information that puts people's lives at risk is not ideal and should not be done unless some greater issue, such as military coverups of war-crimes, is at stake.
I don't know why Assange's organization did not redact the personal details of operatives, but I agree that it seems to be a case of negligence at best. If it could be shown that it was something worse than mere negligence, then Assange, as head of Wikileaks, would have something to answer to.
Do you believe the US response would have been any different if Wikileaks had redacted those personal details and published the rest?
Andrew O'Hagan was contracted to ghost-write a bio of Assange. The project fell apart due to Assange's lack of co-operation (@Tom Storm mentioned O'Hagan's essay on the matter which is here.) O'Hagan's take: 'He wants to be famous, but not scrutinised.' Ironic, considering that scrutiny of others is his basic stock-in-trade.
Hey there's a remark in today's Herald story which caught my eye, concerning the allegations of sexual assault in Sweden:
There are cases like this all the time nowadays, claiming that a condom had been removed without consent. My question is, how the f*** is the judicial system supposed to be able to ascertain the truth or falsity of such allegations beyond reasonable doubt??
Assange seems problematic at best. A very mixed character. One could argue that he did some good, but I don't think it is any longer possible to dismiss his significant shortcomings. I thought the We Steal Secrets documentary did a good job showing this.
By some accounts he is a flawed character. Some reports say he is autistic, on the spectrum and so on. The way I see it we don't rightly judge people but the acts they are known to have committed, and what they, as public figures, stand for. If they are inconsistent, guilty of hypocrisy, then of course that should be exposed. Most of what Assange has been accused of and criticized for seems to be little more than hearsay.
Quoting Wayfarer
The answer is that they cannot.