6 ms·

I read through about 1/2 of the AKP "leaks", it was a tremendous waste of time for anything but improving comprehension of Türkçe. At a point in time, I truly

I read through about 1/2 of the AKP "leaks", it was a tremendous waste of time for anything but improving comprehension of Türkçe. At a point in time, I truly believed Assange's goals were justice and transparency, now I am beginning to feel like he has his own political agenda, and is making sophomoric attempts to affect political change. In 2016 Wikileaks's agenda seems to be: - Anti-Hillary - Anti-Hillary - Pro-Trump - Pro-Putin - Anti-Hillary - Opportunistic The AKP leak falls into that last line. The coup happened, it was frightening (I watched two F-16s fly over the city at mach1+ for six-hours, and the helicopter which landed at BJK was so close to us at a cafe we could see the faces of the guys inside when it banked), and they capitalized on that fear to increase their own credibility and to demonize the ruling party here. Unlike previous leaks Assange and his gang didn't put ANY effort into vetting the "leak". He didn't have to, because within certain crowds Wikileaks is an indisputably trusted source. His perceived persecution makes him beyond reproach, and now any criticism can be blamed on a conspiracy theory. Rapist? CIA/Sweden persecuting him. Bail jumper? CIA/Mi5 persecution. Committed the crime of jumping bail? CIA/Mi5. Hiding in Ecuador for years? Illegal CIA detention. His best buddy Jake Appelbaum is a rapist? CIA. This amount of trust and credibility would certainly make it easier for him, or a foreign agent, to spread malware. It's probably just a slip-up on not scanning the emails before publishing. But if it isn't, what are the odds that they are traced back to Russian hackers? (Edited for typos and formatting. )

amyjess 10y ago
Wikileaks' actions this year have done nothing but prove to me that Wikileaks is just another arm of the alt-right. When you add in Julian Assange's antisemitism and lack of respect for women, it all makes sense.
- somenomadicguy 10y ago
  There might be a much simpler reason for all of this. Being stuck in the embassy for years has severely taxed his emotional stability, encouraging narcissism, paranoia, and victimhood. At the very least, his journalism is sloppy, irresponsible, and ever-decreasing in integrity.
  - amyjess 10y ago
    Both his sexual assaults and his antisemitism predate him running away to the embassy. He ran away to the embassy in 2012 because he refused to take responsibility for his sexual assaults. In 2010 he hired Israel Shamir, an extremely outspoken antisemitic blogger, to help run Wikileaks, and a number of photographs show that they had been close friends for some time before Assange hired him. When he was confronted about this by Private Eye in 2011, he began spouting conspiracy theories about how the Jews were out to get him. Assange is alt-right and has always been.
    - somenomadicguy 10y ago
      Assange is absolutely a criminal for breaking the terms of his bail. The sexual assault charges, however, are unproven, and he really deserves his day in court, whether he is guilty or innocent. I hadn't heard the anti-semite bit before, however.
    - eggy 10y ago
      Let's separate Julian Assange and content of the leaks please. Ad hominem attacks are only meant to divert people from the content of the emails. Take them for what they are, not who rendered them to the public.
      - amyjess 10y ago
        The content of his leaks is irrelevant. What matters is the intent behind releasing them. Assange being alt-right and the fact that he is going out of his way to leak material that improves the chances of the standard-bearer of the alt-right, Donald Trump, becoming head of state of the most powerful country on Earth are absolutely 100% linked together, and those links should be investigated. Some information should not be public for a reason.
        jshevek 10y ago
        I would say the exact opposite. Politically motivated speculation about someone's motives are irrelevant, it is the content of the leaks that matter.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > lack of respect for women Is there any evidence that he lacks respect for women? I have not yet seen any. He was accused of something which in Sweden is called "rape" but in the US would be called "consensual sex". Is that what you are referring to?
  - alex_hitchins 10y ago
    > In Sweden is called "rape" but in the US would be called "consensual sex" If you have sex with someone and tell them you will use a condom and don't, that isn't consensual.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      True, however it is not typically labeled "rape" when the sexual contact aspect is consensual. It seems to constitute some sort of wrongdoing, but potentially also a misunderstanding. In any case, headlines and comments omitting this information and highlighting rape accusations are certainly intended to create a specific impression.
      - alex_hitchins 10y ago
        > It seems to constitute some sort of wrongdoing Saying you are wearing a condom when you aren't is wrongdoing.
        grandalf 10y ago
        > Saying you are wearing a condom when you aren't is wrongdoing. Of course it is. Assange disputed the accusation and claimed that there was mutual understanding of the status of the condom. In any case, barring an unwanted VD or pregnancy, it seems peculiar to decide to pursue legal action about this a month after the fact. While it's possible that Assange acted boorishly and inappropriately, I think rape is not the right word to describe it. Would a woman who lied about having been on birth control reasonably be said to have raped a male partner?
- jshevek 10y ago
  Claiming someone is alt-right is starting to have the feel of McCarthy era claims of communism. We are supposed to associate that label (and thus the person) with the deeply unsavory, without looking at their actual, specific positions and actions.
  - forgottenpass 10y ago
    Claiming someone is alt-right is starting to have the feel of McCarthy era claims of communism. I don't know what they stand for. But I visit generally progressive-leaning places on the internet and know I'm supposed to hate them. I still haven't even figured out who the "reactionaries" are or what they believe in. I think what happened is some people used the wrong word when talking about "contrarians" and through a game of telephone turned created a new political boogieman. Is the conservative side of the (American) political spectrum really going through this much ideological turmoil and restructuring? I haven't heard about it in any of the mainstream news when I glace at it, nor from the conservatives I talk politics with at work. It looks like a way for the left to shill hate.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      The alt-right is what happened when 4chan trolls, MRAs/PUAs, and Stormfront had a baby called 8chan.net/pol/ It's a small group of maybe 10,000, of which 5,000 don't even take the positions seriously, just love to troll millennial college "activist" consumer-types. The Clinton speech about the alt-right will have the same effect as Geraldo Rivera's goofy coverage of Neo-nazi skinheads in the 80s - multiplying their numbers a hundred-fold.
      - jshevek 10y ago
        > It's a small group [some of whom] don't even take the positions seriously, just love to troll millennial college "activist" consumer-types. I completely agree that this group exists, that this phenomenon exists. However, it's also apparent from the way many people use the label "alt right", that they are not limiting themselves to describing this group.
      - 10y ago
mschuster91 10y ago
> His best buddy Jake Appelbaum is a rapist? CIA Seriously. What has "innocent until proven guilty" devolved into? You're bordering on libel. Until a court has convicted Appelbaum of the crime of rape, he is not a rapist. I personally think that the accusations may have a kernel of truth, but are greatly exaggerated by the participants. Only a criminal court is properly equipped with means (both legal and time) to resolve this matter.
- ajamesm 10y ago
  Al Capone was a gangster. Does that unfounded accusation also inflame your sense of justice? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 'Innocent until proven guilty' concerns the court system, but not the rest of civil society. If someone throws up all the red flags of a rapist, nobody is obligated to balk at them.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    Al Capone was a tax evader! How dare you slander such an otherwise upstanding, legitimate businessman with accusations of crimes of far greater severity than those which were actually proven beyond reasonable doubt by prosecutors!~
  - jshevek 10y ago
    > 'Innocent until proven guilty' concerns the court system, but not the rest of civil society. To be a truly civil society, we have a moral obligation to raise ourselves to this standard.
  - mschuster91 10y ago
    > 'Innocent until proven guilty' concerns the court system, but not the rest of civil society. Oh no, it does concern society as a whole, or otherwise libel and defamation would not be classified as crimes...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - 10y ago
MichaelGG 10y ago
Could the anti-Hillary agenda simply be that he has leaks on her? The DNC stuff was damning, as was the reaction. (Bad actor resigns, gets immediately hired without reprimand?) He's said negative Trump stuff - how has he been positive there? If someone brought internal Trump emails, do you think WL wouldn't publish them? If this had been flipped, and he had only published anti-Trump stuff, would you be making the same comment? (Honest question.)
- grandalf 10y ago
  You are right to question this. His comment parrots the opinion of the HRC campaign which there is zero evidence for.
  - trendia 10y ago
    I think people's opinions are polarized this year because of the election. If Wikileaks had only released information on the Malaysian Prime Minister, for instance, I doubt that we'd be seeing the same kind of strong opinions about them.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      True. It's odd, though, because even if I did plan to vote for one of the major party candidates, I'd still want to know anything that shed light on corruption they were involved in, character flaws, etc. It's odd to see people fighting to suppress information about the so-called "good guy" when in fact they ought to be considering why they would vote for someone who was involved in such things. Maybe most people just want to feel loved and protected by a powerful warlord.
- somenomadicguy 10y ago
  To answer this honestly, I don't know. It would depend on the quality of the data he leaked, and which hostile foreign enemy he sided with against him. On one hand, I have daughters, and don't want misogynistic defenders of rape-culture having any power over them. On the other hand, I care about fairness and justice. On my third hand (yay radiation!), Clinton is an evil sociopath who is bound to be largely ineffective as your president thanks to a republican legislature. Trump, however, is an incompetent demagogue who I think will cause a massive amount of un-needed suffering in this world. So my honest answer is, I don't know. It probably depends on if I'd taken my meds that day and how emotional I was feeling.
at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> In 2016 Wikileaks's agenda seems to be: - Anti-Hillary - Anti-Hillary - Pro-Trump - Pro-Putin - Anti-Hillary - Opportunistic I actually laughed when I read this. I actually laughed when Sean Hannity had him on and was talking about he thinks he should be a free man and what great work he's doing. Backtrack a few years ago, and it was the Republicans and all their supporters who wanted to tar and feather Assange for the Snowden leaks. Hannity talked about how Assange should be in jail and all the crimes he committed against the US intelligence community, got CIA people killed and on and on and on. It's clear it depends on who's OX is being gored with Assange, which makes him a unique personality to deal with. I don't think he picks sides, he just always picks the publicity angle and doesn't really care who gets in the line of fire. The funny part is how each side treats him like a savior or some kind of patriot but then when he gets leaked documents on their side, suddenly he's the bad guy? I just don't like him period, but he does have a flair the dramatic doesn't he?
- protomyth 10y ago
  I laughed too.... He actually has a pretty consistent agenda - reveal shocking stuff that people don't want revealed, and do it with a dramatic flair. Yes, a couple years back his releases on Iraq / Afghanistan had some things that enraged Republicans and were praised by Democrats. Now he's exposing their house. He's an agent of chaos with a self promotion streak. Saying his agenda is anything beyond that ignores history. I'm not a big fan, but I think endangering the non-decision makers is bad.
  - varjag 10y ago
    His agenda can be best described as anti-American (yes I realize it's a very loaded term). He would release whatever hurts American interests most, regardless of who represents the USA at the moment.
    - at-fates-hands 10y ago
      I would agree with that. Although I'm not sure if that is because the majority of the documents he gets are from the US, or if the US has been, and always will be, a place where secrets are so tightly guarded anybody that has an avenue to expose some of them are going to do so. Does Wikileaks get documents from other countries? Has he gotten the amount of publicity in other countries from those leaks that he has on his US documents?
grandalf 10y ago
> I am beginning to feel like he has his own political agenda This is the position of some of the people/groups he's embarrassed. As if to say "Yes, I've been caught, but the person who helped catch me has it out for me, let's just ignore this". Also, as the US Army intelligence service underscored a few years ago, Wikileaks is ripe for propaganda use, since information can be provided to WL to suit political goals, and with some information removed to create a specific impression. The US Army Intelligence analysis also suggested that an effective strategy to harm WL would be to leak materials that would reflect poorly on it and and cause people to question Assange's motives. No doubt all powerful entities (governments, people) realize this. WL has many enemies and so likely many are using both of these strategies as situations permit. Have you read the details of the rape accusations? Sweden has a particular definition of rape that is far more encompassing of conduct that in most jurisdictions constitutes fully consensual activity. Since the claims against Assange would be considered claims of consensual sex in the US, it's hard for me to take them entirely seriously, yet the label of "Rapist" persists. This phenomenon is truly bizarre. The question to ask is, what qualities do we most hope something like Wikileaks has, so that it can aid the process of truth, transparency, and careful investigative journalism. I'd suggest the following: - Strong willingness to work with mainstream news outlets to create high production quality investigative journalism (Assange has done all he possibly could). - Resilience to meddling by the many enemies one makes (Assange has done well with this). - Reinforcing the strength and bias-free nature of the institution (Assange has made clear that he finds Trump and Hillary both despicable, yet this comment is ignored by many such as yourself).
- somenomadicguy 10y ago
  The first 1/2 of your argument: CIA. Let me be clear, I don't support Clinton, Trump, or anybody else, I feel you have to be an evil sociopath to even want to be a world leader. I think he is just playing sides. Trump doesn't give a crap, but Hillary knows he's after her. Putin has shown an eager willingness to give asylum to Snowden, him, and anybody else. I just think he's a sociopathic narcissist who watched too many thrillers and wants to wield power against governments. - Strong willingness to work with mainstream news outlets to create high production quality investigative journalism (Assange has done all he possibly could). In the beginning, sure, I'll admit you were right on this. The past year or two, however, wikileaks has failed to produce anything of substance. It's "leaks" (of Turkish dessert recipes) have been sloppy at best, irresponsible and dangerous at worst. Not even Fox would be as careless as he was with the personal data of millions of women in an islamist country. Sean Hannity isn't exactly Woodward and Bernstein. - Resilience to meddling by the many enemies one makes (Assange has done well with this). Has he? He seems to be attempting to wield his power against his enemies. Is that resilience, or vendetta? - Reinforcing the strength and bias-free nature of the institution (Assange has made clear that he finds Trump and Hillary both despicable, yet this comment is ignored by many such as yourself). His actions state otherwise. I'm not sure who posts more anti-clinton rhetoric, Trump or Assange. Lately Wikileaks' feed has have been emotional responses to criticisms and perceived sleights, and heavily biased character attacks on his perceived enemies. There hasn't actually been any journalism that I can see. Assange has a problem with women. His character assaults against Clinton and journalist Zeynep Tukfeci are pretty good indicators of this.
jshevek 10y ago
It strikes me as absurd to say that Assange is pro-Trump, unless you think anti-HRC and pro-Trump are identical positions.
marcoperaza 10y ago
>At a point in time, I truly believed Assange's goals were justice and transparency, now I am beginning to feel like he has his own political agenda, and is making sophomoric attempts to affect political change. He has always very openly had a political agenda. You just don't like the new flavor of his Koolaid.
- tome 10y ago
  Absolutely. Astonishing that Hacker News is only just cottoning on to this now.
empath75 10y ago
He's always had a political agenda: http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf They're sometimes useful, and sometimes useful idiots. I think groups like wikileaks are a good thing, and it would be better if there were more of them, to prevent what seems to have happened here where they've been steered into supporting Putin's geopolitical agenda.
devy 10y ago
There is a difference between Anti-Hilary vs. Pro-Trump. I believe Assange's in the former camp. But since U.S. presidential elections only has a binary choice, some people blur the lines between the two.
belorn 10y ago
Assange's goal, as written down a long time ago, is to publish enough leaks to make secrecy costly, cumbersome and inefficient. Is there any evidence for leaks that would have such effect but which wikileaks is not publishing?

amyjess 10y ago

Wikileaks' actions this year have done nothing but prove to me that Wikileaks is just another arm of the alt-right. When you add in Julian Assange's antisemitism and lack of respect for women, it all makes sense.

somenomadicguy 10y ago
There might be a much simpler reason for all of this. Being stuck in the embassy for years has severely taxed his emotional stability, encouraging narcissism, paranoia, and victimhood. At the very least, his journalism is sloppy, irresponsible, and ever-decreasing in integrity.
- amyjess 10y ago
  Both his sexual assaults and his antisemitism predate him running away to the embassy. He ran away to the embassy in 2012 because he refused to take responsibility for his sexual assaults. In 2010 he hired Israel Shamir, an extremely outspoken antisemitic blogger, to help run Wikileaks, and a number of photographs show that they had been close friends for some time before Assange hired him. When he was confronted about this by Private Eye in 2011, he began spouting conspiracy theories about how the Jews were out to get him. Assange is alt-right and has always been.
  - somenomadicguy 10y ago
    Assange is absolutely a criminal for breaking the terms of his bail. The sexual assault charges, however, are unproven, and he really deserves his day in court, whether he is guilty or innocent. I hadn't heard the anti-semite bit before, however.
  - eggy 10y ago
    Let's separate Julian Assange and content of the leaks please. Ad hominem attacks are only meant to divert people from the content of the emails. Take them for what they are, not who rendered them to the public.
    - amyjess 10y ago
      The content of his leaks is irrelevant. What matters is the intent behind releasing them. Assange being alt-right and the fact that he is going out of his way to leak material that improves the chances of the standard-bearer of the alt-right, Donald Trump, becoming head of state of the most powerful country on Earth are absolutely 100% linked together, and those links should be investigated. Some information should not be public for a reason.
      - jshevek 10y ago
        I would say the exact opposite. Politically motivated speculation about someone's motives are irrelevant, it is the content of the leaks that matter.
grandalf 10y ago
> lack of respect for women Is there any evidence that he lacks respect for women? I have not yet seen any. He was accused of something which in Sweden is called "rape" but in the US would be called "consensual sex". Is that what you are referring to?
- alex_hitchins 10y ago
  > In Sweden is called "rape" but in the US would be called "consensual sex" If you have sex with someone and tell them you will use a condom and don't, that isn't consensual.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    True, however it is not typically labeled "rape" when the sexual contact aspect is consensual. It seems to constitute some sort of wrongdoing, but potentially also a misunderstanding. In any case, headlines and comments omitting this information and highlighting rape accusations are certainly intended to create a specific impression.
    - alex_hitchins 10y ago
      > It seems to constitute some sort of wrongdoing Saying you are wearing a condom when you aren't is wrongdoing.
      - grandalf 10y ago
        > Saying you are wearing a condom when you aren't is wrongdoing. Of course it is. Assange disputed the accusation and claimed that there was mutual understanding of the status of the condom. In any case, barring an unwanted VD or pregnancy, it seems peculiar to decide to pursue legal action about this a month after the fact. While it's possible that Assange acted boorishly and inappropriately, I think rape is not the right word to describe it. Would a woman who lied about having been on birth control reasonably be said to have raped a male partner?
jshevek 10y ago
Claiming someone is alt-right is starting to have the feel of McCarthy era claims of communism. We are supposed to associate that label (and thus the person) with the deeply unsavory, without looking at their actual, specific positions and actions.
- forgottenpass 10y ago
  Claiming someone is alt-right is starting to have the feel of McCarthy era claims of communism. I don't know what they stand for. But I visit generally progressive-leaning places on the internet and know I'm supposed to hate them. I still haven't even figured out who the "reactionaries" are or what they believe in. I think what happened is some people used the wrong word when talking about "contrarians" and through a game of telephone turned created a new political boogieman. Is the conservative side of the (American) political spectrum really going through this much ideological turmoil and restructuring? I haven't heard about it in any of the mainstream news when I glace at it, nor from the conservatives I talk politics with at work. It looks like a way for the left to shill hate.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    The alt-right is what happened when 4chan trolls, MRAs/PUAs, and Stormfront had a baby called 8chan.net/pol/ It's a small group of maybe 10,000, of which 5,000 don't even take the positions seriously, just love to troll millennial college "activist" consumer-types. The Clinton speech about the alt-right will have the same effect as Geraldo Rivera's goofy coverage of Neo-nazi skinheads in the 80s - multiplying their numbers a hundred-fold.
    - jshevek 10y ago
      > It's a small group [some of whom] don't even take the positions seriously, just love to troll millennial college "activist" consumer-types. I completely agree that this group exists, that this phenomenon exists. However, it's also apparent from the way many people use the label "alt right", that they are not limiting themselves to describing this group.
    - 10y ago

mschuster91 10y ago

> His best buddy Jake Appelbaum is a rapist? CIA Seriously. What has "innocent until proven guilty" devolved into? You're bordering on libel. Until a court has convicted Appelbaum of the crime of rape, he is not a rapist. I personally think that the accusations may have a kernel of truth, but are greatly exaggerated by the participants. Only a criminal court is properly equipped with means (both legal and time) to resolve this matter.

ajamesm 10y ago
Al Capone was a gangster. Does that unfounded accusation also inflame your sense of justice? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 'Innocent until proven guilty' concerns the court system, but not the rest of civil society. If someone throws up all the red flags of a rapist, nobody is obligated to balk at them.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Al Capone was a tax evader! How dare you slander such an otherwise upstanding, legitimate businessman with accusations of crimes of far greater severity than those which were actually proven beyond reasonable doubt by prosecutors!~
- jshevek 10y ago
  > 'Innocent until proven guilty' concerns the court system, but not the rest of civil society. To be a truly civil society, we have a moral obligation to raise ourselves to this standard.
- mschuster91 10y ago
  > 'Innocent until proven guilty' concerns the court system, but not the rest of civil society. Oh no, it does concern society as a whole, or otherwise libel and defamation would not be classified as crimes...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - 10y ago

MichaelGG 10y ago

Could the anti-Hillary agenda simply be that he has leaks on her? The DNC stuff was damning, as was the reaction. (Bad actor resigns, gets immediately hired without reprimand?) He's said negative Trump stuff - how has he been positive there? If someone brought internal Trump emails, do you think WL wouldn't publish them? If this had been flipped, and he had only published anti-Trump stuff, would you be making the same comment? (Honest question.)

grandalf 10y ago
You are right to question this. His comment parrots the opinion of the HRC campaign which there is zero evidence for.
- trendia 10y ago
  I think people's opinions are polarized this year because of the election. If Wikileaks had only released information on the Malaysian Prime Minister, for instance, I doubt that we'd be seeing the same kind of strong opinions about them.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    True. It's odd, though, because even if I did plan to vote for one of the major party candidates, I'd still want to know anything that shed light on corruption they were involved in, character flaws, etc. It's odd to see people fighting to suppress information about the so-called "good guy" when in fact they ought to be considering why they would vote for someone who was involved in such things. Maybe most people just want to feel loved and protected by a powerful warlord.
somenomadicguy 10y ago
To answer this honestly, I don't know. It would depend on the quality of the data he leaked, and which hostile foreign enemy he sided with against him. On one hand, I have daughters, and don't want misogynistic defenders of rape-culture having any power over them. On the other hand, I care about fairness and justice. On my third hand (yay radiation!), Clinton is an evil sociopath who is bound to be largely ineffective as your president thanks to a republican legislature. Trump, however, is an incompetent demagogue who I think will cause a massive amount of un-needed suffering in this world. So my honest answer is, I don't know. It probably depends on if I'd taken my meds that day and how emotional I was feeling.

at-fates-hands 10y ago

>> In 2016 Wikileaks's agenda seems to be: - Anti-Hillary - Anti-Hillary - Pro-Trump - Pro-Putin - Anti-Hillary - Opportunistic I actually laughed when I read this. I actually laughed when Sean Hannity had him on and was talking about he thinks he should be a free man and what great work he's doing. Backtrack a few years ago, and it was the Republicans and all their supporters who wanted to tar and feather Assange for the Snowden leaks. Hannity talked about how Assange should be in jail and all the crimes he committed against the US intelligence community, got CIA people killed and on and on and on. It's clear it depends on who's OX is being gored with Assange, which makes him a unique personality to deal with. I don't think he picks sides, he just always picks the publicity angle and doesn't really care who gets in the line of fire. The funny part is how each side treats him like a savior or some kind of patriot but then when he gets leaked documents on their side, suddenly he's the bad guy? I just don't like him period, but he does have a flair the dramatic doesn't he?

protomyth 10y ago
I laughed too.... He actually has a pretty consistent agenda - reveal shocking stuff that people don't want revealed, and do it with a dramatic flair. Yes, a couple years back his releases on Iraq / Afghanistan had some things that enraged Republicans and were praised by Democrats. Now he's exposing their house. He's an agent of chaos with a self promotion streak. Saying his agenda is anything beyond that ignores history. I'm not a big fan, but I think endangering the non-decision makers is bad.
- varjag 10y ago
  His agenda can be best described as anti-American (yes I realize it's a very loaded term). He would release whatever hurts American interests most, regardless of who represents the USA at the moment.
  - at-fates-hands 10y ago
    I would agree with that. Although I'm not sure if that is because the majority of the documents he gets are from the US, or if the US has been, and always will be, a place where secrets are so tightly guarded anybody that has an avenue to expose some of them are going to do so. Does Wikileaks get documents from other countries? Has he gotten the amount of publicity in other countries from those leaks that he has on his US documents?

grandalf 10y ago

> I am beginning to feel like he has his own political agenda This is the position of some of the people/groups he's embarrassed. As if to say "Yes, I've been caught, but the person who helped catch me has it out for me, let's just ignore this". Also, as the US Army intelligence service underscored a few years ago, Wikileaks is ripe for propaganda use, since information can be provided to WL to suit political goals, and with some information removed to create a specific impression. The US Army Intelligence analysis also suggested that an effective strategy to harm WL would be to leak materials that would reflect poorly on it and and cause people to question Assange's motives. No doubt all powerful entities (governments, people) realize this. WL has many enemies and so likely many are using both of these strategies as situations permit. Have you read the details of the rape accusations? Sweden has a particular definition of rape that is far more encompassing of conduct that in most jurisdictions constitutes fully consensual activity. Since the claims against Assange would be considered claims of consensual sex in the US, it's hard for me to take them entirely seriously, yet the label of "Rapist" persists. This phenomenon is truly bizarre. The question to ask is, what qualities do we most hope something like Wikileaks has, so that it can aid the process of truth, transparency, and careful investigative journalism. I'd suggest the following: - Strong willingness to work with mainstream news outlets to create high production quality investigative journalism (Assange has done all he possibly could). - Resilience to meddling by the many enemies one makes (Assange has done well with this). - Reinforcing the strength and bias-free nature of the institution (Assange has made clear that he finds Trump and Hillary both despicable, yet this comment is ignored by many such as yourself).

somenomadicguy 10y ago
The first 1/2 of your argument: CIA. Let me be clear, I don't support Clinton, Trump, or anybody else, I feel you have to be an evil sociopath to even want to be a world leader. I think he is just playing sides. Trump doesn't give a crap, but Hillary knows he's after her. Putin has shown an eager willingness to give asylum to Snowden, him, and anybody else. I just think he's a sociopathic narcissist who watched too many thrillers and wants to wield power against governments. - Strong willingness to work with mainstream news outlets to create high production quality investigative journalism (Assange has done all he possibly could). In the beginning, sure, I'll admit you were right on this. The past year or two, however, wikileaks has failed to produce anything of substance. It's "leaks" (of Turkish dessert recipes) have been sloppy at best, irresponsible and dangerous at worst. Not even Fox would be as careless as he was with the personal data of millions of women in an islamist country. Sean Hannity isn't exactly Woodward and Bernstein. - Resilience to meddling by the many enemies one makes (Assange has done well with this). Has he? He seems to be attempting to wield his power against his enemies. Is that resilience, or vendetta? - Reinforcing the strength and bias-free nature of the institution (Assange has made clear that he finds Trump and Hillary both despicable, yet this comment is ignored by many such as yourself). His actions state otherwise. I'm not sure who posts more anti-clinton rhetoric, Trump or Assange. Lately Wikileaks' feed has have been emotional responses to criticisms and perceived sleights, and heavily biased character attacks on his perceived enemies. There hasn't actually been any journalism that I can see. Assange has a problem with women. His character assaults against Clinton and journalist Zeynep Tukfeci are pretty good indicators of this.

jshevek 10y ago

It strikes me as absurd to say that Assange is pro-Trump, unless you think anti-HRC and pro-Trump are identical positions.

marcoperaza 10y ago

>At a point in time, I truly believed Assange's goals were justice and transparency, now I am beginning to feel like he has his own political agenda, and is making sophomoric attempts to affect political change. He has always very openly had a political agenda. You just don't like the new flavor of his Koolaid.

tome 10y ago
Absolutely. Astonishing that Hacker News is only just cottoning on to this now.

empath75 10y ago

He's always had a political agenda: http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf They're sometimes useful, and sometimes useful idiots. I think groups like wikileaks are a good thing, and it would be better if there were more of them, to prevent what seems to have happened here where they've been steered into supporting Putin's geopolitical agenda.

devy 10y ago

There is a difference between Anti-Hilary vs. Pro-Trump. I believe Assange's in the former camp. But since U.S. presidential elections only has a binary choice, some people blur the lines between the two.

belorn 10y ago

Assange's goal, as written down a long time ago, is to publish enough leaks to make secrecy costly, cumbersome and inefficient. Is there any evidence for leaks that would have such effect but which wikileaks is not publishing?