5 ms·

I used to respect what Assanage is doing. But recently its clear his actions aren't some noble crusade to speak truth to power and promote freedom of speech and

by IIAOPSW 10y ago

I used to respect what Assanage is doing. But recently its clear his actions aren't some noble crusade to speak truth to power and promote freedom of speech and otherwise promote civil liberties. If that were the point then he would leak whatever he has whenever he gets it instead of trying to time it to affect the election. If he really believed in the causes he claims to believe in then he wouldn't be trying to get Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump into office. I guess in light of new evidence I changed my opinion. Why can't other people be rational like me.

oh_sigh 10y ago
Are you sure it's not just the fact that you didn't like the groups he was dumping information on in the past, but now you do like the group he is dumping information on?
ftrflyr 10y ago
I am not sure how you arrived at your conclusion that he is "trying to get Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump into office. What you describe is what MSM is doing for Hillary. Perhaps you are a Hillary Troll. Maybe you are not. Based on this comment alone, I will make an assumption that you are in fact a troll and thus, should be discredited and removed from HN. Also, you changed your opinion because why exactly? Let's not forget...he is still fighting allegations that would result in his extradition to the U.S. Perhaps he is releasing the docs as is because it provides leverage or at least a faint possibility that the charges could be dropped? Until you are in his situation, you cannot possible attempt to understand his state of mind.
cjdkcnsnd 10y ago
Please just stop. Have we really become so blindly partisan as a nation that we complain about uneven distribution of evidence of corruption rather than the corruption itself? Ponder that for a moment, please.
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  > Please just stop. That reminded me of John Stewart on Crossfire.. you're as correct now as he was then. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html STEWART: No, no, no, please. CARLSON: No, no, hold on. We've got commercials. (CROSSTALK) STEWART: Please. Please stop. CARLSON: Next, Jon Stewart in the "Rapid Fire." STEWART: Please stop.
  - myrion 10y ago
    Wow, that was really hard on the Crossfire guys! They couldn't engage with him at all due to, I suspect, either a lack of self-reflection or because doing so would be admitting that they are harmful to public discourse. Thanks for the link!
- IIAOPSW 10y ago
  That's not what I'm doing at all. I wouldn't mind if Assanage had simply gotten a leak and released it in a timely manner like he usually does. My opinion changed when he blatantly started timing his leaks to meddle in the election (AKA October surprise). He's not even meddling in favor of someone who is pro-civil liberties. His "October surprise" stunt isn't advancing the mission statement of wikileaks in any way. If his stunt does change the course of the election it will do absolutely nothing to help accountability or journalistic freedom. If anything a Trump presidency may actively hurt these freedoms. So let me beg the question. WTF is Assanage trying to accomplish here?
- byuu 10y ago
  While I am certain there are some troubling revelations in there, I fail to see how Neera Tanden shit-talking about Lawrence Lessig is in any way relevant to the public interest. It's simply an unethical violation of privacy. Had he filtered it to just the important stuff and released it right away, journalists and the public could be having real conversations about said material right now instead. Of course, being fair, they didn't do that great a job with the release of cables in the past either. Being fair, my political bias probably swayed me into overlooking that back then more than I should have. Transparency should be where it matters. People should have a right to privacy for personal comments such as this. I think Julian being trapped in a room for the past several years has not been kind to his health. It's been a shame to see him reduced to a shill for one political party.
  - IIAOPSW 10y ago
    I'll go ahead and defend wikileaks on this count (despite my statements about Julian in the parent comment). The entire point of wikileaks is that they publish information as is under the belief that the public is smart enough to reach their own conclusions without editorializing. This means publishing everything they got with its full mundane nature on display (if for no other reason than as proof that they are not hiding things). The policy of wikileaks is that they will black out only information which could put people's lives at risk. Merely being embarrassing is not sufficient criteria to get blacked out. Agree or disagree with their philosophy, at least they have been consistent about it. Releasing the Tanden-Lessig e-mail is totally in line with what I'd expect from them.
    - byuu 10y ago
      I understand that, I just don't agree with it. How many of us would want to have everything we've ever said or done in private aired out in public, under the guise that "the public is smart enough to not editorialize anything"? I'm quite certain that would have disastrous consequences on my life, as well as just about anyone else's. How about yours? That said, when it comes to something affecting the public interest (eg government corruption), then yes, I am all for airing such matters. Transparent government is good. Transparent "what kind of porn does Joe Public watch at home?" is not.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Awfully weird how many green usernames keep showing up in these threads to make this kind of point. Did Palmer Luckey go on another spending spree?
- gregpardo 10y ago
  But Trump bad! Clinton good. Get us some leaks too.
abgawrv 10y ago
> Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump As opposed to Hillary-lets-coopt-the-media-and-bribe-my-potential-critics-Clinton? I hate Donald Trump, but dismissing evidence because of the source is clearly misguided.
- IIAOPSW 10y ago
  I didn't say anything about dismissing evidence. I simply said I've lost respect for Julian Assanage. The entire point of wikileaks is to inform the public without any filter because we are smart enough to judge things for ourselves. But now clearly Assanage is acting as a filter with the explicit goal of stopping a Clinton presidency. His support of Trump doesn't even promote the goals of his organization vis-a-vis journalistic freedoms. At some point one has to question why is Julian doing these things? If Julian has lost track of the original goals of his organization then why should I care about his de facto incarceration? Why would I or anybody else donate to wikileaks? Why should the Ecuadorians keep him?
  - harry8 10y ago
    Do you have any evidence at all for this claim: "Assanage is acting as a filter with the explicit goal of stopping a Clinton presidency"
- wallace_f 10y ago
  How you are downvoted for stating that is a sign of partisanship or ignorance on this message board.
  - abgawrv 10y ago
    I didn't expect it either. First I got a couple upvotes, then downvoted heavily, and now back up again :)
gragas 10y ago
> But recently its clear his actions aren't some noble crusade to speak truth to power and promote freedom of speech and otherwise promote civil liberties. How could WikiLeaks be interpreted as anything other than promoting civil liberties? Its sole purpose is to expose the corrupt behind-the-curtain dealings of leaders and political elite---to give power to the people and remove it from the corrupt. > Why can't other people be rational like me. You really need to get out of your own head.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > How could WikiLeaks be interpreted as anything other than promoting civil liberties? Its sole purpose ... Perhaps taken at face value that's true, but I judge them by their actions: * They consistently advocate for one political point of view, an anti-US government one. Where are leaks about Putin? Bernie Sanders? Jill Stein? For comparison, the NY Times is hard on both candidates: For example, they both broke the Clinton email server story and Trump's tax return. * They are cooperating in what appears to be a Russian intelligence disinformation campaign to disrupt U.S. democracy. Assange seems too smart to be an unwitting participant. * There are reports it's due to a vendetta Assange has against Clinton. Based on the above and other actions, I question whether their mission really is to promote civil liberties.
  - Kristine1975 10y ago
    Wikileaks can only publish what they are given. If nobody gives them leaks on Putin, Sanders etc. they can't publish any.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      A good point, but how do we know it's true? Does Wikileaks solicit material? Are they selective about what they publish? I see what they claim to do, but it's too important to take at face value.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  What possible corruption is revealed by the quoted email?
harry8 10y ago
"trying to get Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump into office" is a massive assumption and one without much evidence. But yeah anything embarrassing to one's own team tends to get that kind of response. Why wouldn't you suppress evidence of corruption in the next US president, one who evidently hates him. "Why can't we just drone him? hahaha" Or whatever that quote is. He should subvert is principles to support her? Really? Trump is likely (imho) more dangerous than Hilary, that doesn't make Hilary good. Exposing her corruption is a good thing. Making her sweat as much as possible about her corruption is a good thing, as it is for any corrupt and powerful person. And yeah, "publish whatever he gets whenever he gets leaked it immediately" Without vetting it to see if it will get anyone killed. Interesting idea and one that Assange, while having rejected it, may well be more sympathetic to than I am. You're something of a radical there. He gets the leaks and he publishes. Nobody seems to have faulted him on doing that which is exactly what he says he does and always has. His opinions about other stuff don't really affect what he does, which is publish. But I do have sympathy especially for him hating Hilary - if indeed he does. I can imagine not caring for someone who (were they joking?) wants to kill me. I wonder if your support of Trump's opposition would make that different for you in his shoes? Maybe it would.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
zby 10y ago
Do you know about something that Wikileaks did not publish even if they got it? They cannot leak what they do not get. It is clear that their sources use Wikileaks to influence politics. Wikileaks could perhaps withold the information until after the elections - but then they would be accused by the other side.
- Tomte 10y ago
  Assange said himself that they have material on Trump, but he wouldn't release it, because it is supposedly no worse than the stuff Trump openly says. Fine, I can understand that. Sounds like a lot of noise, no signal. But it's not "releasing everything". It's "deciding what is newsworthy" and "trust me". So it's laughable that in all other regards (mails of regular Turkish citizens, DNC stuff) he and his supporters claim that Wikileaks simply releases everything without any internal motivation or thematic selection.
wallace_f 10y ago
It appears the popular perception of the two candidates is that one of them is a "tin pot" dictator who will silence all his critics and act outside the law Sources: NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-special-prosecutor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/donald-trump-h... Comment above mine: >Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump What is even more disturbing is that a presidential candidate has asked, in what appears to be an off-the-cuff suggestion, about murdering one of her critics through the use of drone strikes: Source: https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assange/ https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assang... That candidate is Hillary Clinton. I find it even more disturbing western media has nearly successfully buried this story. I don't support Trump, but Clinton should not be immune to the laws of this country, or of criticism, as Glenn Greenwald and other respectable journalists are saying.
- argonaut 10y ago
  That is because the Western media is in the habit of actually trying to verify sources and not making things up. The only "citation" offered by True Pundit, the original source of this claim (and a website I have never heard of) is "according to State Department sources" (http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/ http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wiki...).
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    You read that on Snopes - that's what Snopes wrote on their site. CNN just broadcasted this on national television, in what appears more appropriate of taking place in a movie version of Orwell's 1984 than in reality: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... The major media outlets generally have not been figures worthy of ethical praise this election cycle. Meanwhile respectable journalists fighting for civil rights are being arrested and charged with felony crimes for reporting, so I don't buy into that argument in which corporate media, which a small number of corporations own over 95% of what people see and hear, is over- and under-reporting stories entirely out of ethical and professional consideration: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/amy-goodman-north-dakota-oil-access-pipeline-protest-arrest-riot https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/amy-goodman-... You and I both are incredibly lucky to live in a country where those charges against Amy Goodman have been thrown out, but would that have happened to a journalist who was not famous? Or what if there was no video evidence, and it was the police and the DA against a citizen? This story on Hillary is unproven, but so are the allegations against Trump as a sexual assault perpetrator and look at how much media attention that has garnered. I hate Trump but that disparity in and of itself bothers me and in fact lends even more credence to the claim of growing corruption in government. Just also keep in mind, that if this particular claim against Hillary is forged, which is still entirely possible, remember that yet no one has been able to point to any inconsistencies or untruths which would prove that is true. And your comment of "making things up" is a bit inflammatory. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where we can say, "you got live in a world with that government, I'll go live in this one," we all have to live with each other's choices.

by IIAOPSW 10y ago

oh_sigh 10y ago

Are you sure it's not just the fact that you didn't like the groups he was dumping information on in the past, but now you do like the group he is dumping information on?

ftrflyr 10y ago

I am not sure how you arrived at your conclusion that he is "trying to get Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump into office. What you describe is what MSM is doing for Hillary. Perhaps you are a Hillary Troll. Maybe you are not. Based on this comment alone, I will make an assumption that you are in fact a troll and thus, should be discredited and removed from HN. Also, you changed your opinion because why exactly? Let's not forget...he is still fighting allegations that would result in his extradition to the U.S. Perhaps he is releasing the docs as is because it provides leverage or at least a faint possibility that the charges could be dropped? Until you are in his situation, you cannot possible attempt to understand his state of mind.

cjdkcnsnd 10y ago

Please just stop. Have we really become so blindly partisan as a nation that we complain about uneven distribution of evidence of corruption rather than the corruption itself? Ponder that for a moment, please.

PavlovsCat 10y ago
> Please just stop. That reminded me of John Stewart on Crossfire.. you're as correct now as he was then. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html STEWART: No, no, no, please. CARLSON: No, no, hold on. We've got commercials. (CROSSTALK) STEWART: Please. Please stop. CARLSON: Next, Jon Stewart in the "Rapid Fire." STEWART: Please stop.
- myrion 10y ago
  Wow, that was really hard on the Crossfire guys! They couldn't engage with him at all due to, I suspect, either a lack of self-reflection or because doing so would be admitting that they are harmful to public discourse. Thanks for the link!
IIAOPSW 10y ago
That's not what I'm doing at all. I wouldn't mind if Assanage had simply gotten a leak and released it in a timely manner like he usually does. My opinion changed when he blatantly started timing his leaks to meddle in the election (AKA October surprise). He's not even meddling in favor of someone who is pro-civil liberties. His "October surprise" stunt isn't advancing the mission statement of wikileaks in any way. If his stunt does change the course of the election it will do absolutely nothing to help accountability or journalistic freedom. If anything a Trump presidency may actively hurt these freedoms. So let me beg the question. WTF is Assanage trying to accomplish here?
byuu 10y ago
While I am certain there are some troubling revelations in there, I fail to see how Neera Tanden shit-talking about Lawrence Lessig is in any way relevant to the public interest. It's simply an unethical violation of privacy. Had he filtered it to just the important stuff and released it right away, journalists and the public could be having real conversations about said material right now instead. Of course, being fair, they didn't do that great a job with the release of cables in the past either. Being fair, my political bias probably swayed me into overlooking that back then more than I should have. Transparency should be where it matters. People should have a right to privacy for personal comments such as this. I think Julian being trapped in a room for the past several years has not been kind to his health. It's been a shame to see him reduced to a shill for one political party.
- IIAOPSW 10y ago
  I'll go ahead and defend wikileaks on this count (despite my statements about Julian in the parent comment). The entire point of wikileaks is that they publish information as is under the belief that the public is smart enough to reach their own conclusions without editorializing. This means publishing everything they got with its full mundane nature on display (if for no other reason than as proof that they are not hiding things). The policy of wikileaks is that they will black out only information which could put people's lives at risk. Merely being embarrassing is not sufficient criteria to get blacked out. Agree or disagree with their philosophy, at least they have been consistent about it. Releasing the Tanden-Lessig e-mail is totally in line with what I'd expect from them.
  - byuu 10y ago
    I understand that, I just don't agree with it. How many of us would want to have everything we've ever said or done in private aired out in public, under the guise that "the public is smart enough to not editorialize anything"? I'm quite certain that would have disastrous consequences on my life, as well as just about anyone else's. How about yours? That said, when it comes to something affecting the public interest (eg government corruption), then yes, I am all for airing such matters. Transparent government is good. Transparent "what kind of porn does Joe Public watch at home?" is not.
ubernostrum 10y ago
Awfully weird how many green usernames keep showing up in these threads to make this kind of point. Did Palmer Luckey go on another spending spree?
gregpardo 10y ago
But Trump bad! Clinton good. Get us some leaks too.

abgawrv 10y ago

> Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump As opposed to Hillary-lets-coopt-the-media-and-bribe-my-potential-critics-Clinton? I hate Donald Trump, but dismissing evidence because of the source is clearly misguided.

IIAOPSW 10y ago
I didn't say anything about dismissing evidence. I simply said I've lost respect for Julian Assanage. The entire point of wikileaks is to inform the public without any filter because we are smart enough to judge things for ourselves. But now clearly Assanage is acting as a filter with the explicit goal of stopping a Clinton presidency. His support of Trump doesn't even promote the goals of his organization vis-a-vis journalistic freedoms. At some point one has to question why is Julian doing these things? If Julian has lost track of the original goals of his organization then why should I care about his de facto incarceration? Why would I or anybody else donate to wikileaks? Why should the Ecuadorians keep him?
- harry8 10y ago
  Do you have any evidence at all for this claim: "Assanage is acting as a filter with the explicit goal of stopping a Clinton presidency"
wallace_f 10y ago
How you are downvoted for stating that is a sign of partisanship or ignorance on this message board.
- abgawrv 10y ago
  I didn't expect it either. First I got a couple upvotes, then downvoted heavily, and now back up again :)

gragas 10y ago

> But recently its clear his actions aren't some noble crusade to speak truth to power and promote freedom of speech and otherwise promote civil liberties. How could WikiLeaks be interpreted as anything other than promoting civil liberties? Its sole purpose is to expose the corrupt behind-the-curtain dealings of leaders and political elite---to give power to the people and remove it from the corrupt. > Why can't other people be rational like me. You really need to get out of your own head.

hackuser 10y ago
> How could WikiLeaks be interpreted as anything other than promoting civil liberties? Its sole purpose ... Perhaps taken at face value that's true, but I judge them by their actions: * They consistently advocate for one political point of view, an anti-US government one. Where are leaks about Putin? Bernie Sanders? Jill Stein? For comparison, the NY Times is hard on both candidates: For example, they both broke the Clinton email server story and Trump's tax return. * They are cooperating in what appears to be a Russian intelligence disinformation campaign to disrupt U.S. democracy. Assange seems too smart to be an unwitting participant. * There are reports it's due to a vendetta Assange has against Clinton. Based on the above and other actions, I question whether their mission really is to promote civil liberties.
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  Wikileaks can only publish what they are given. If nobody gives them leaks on Putin, Sanders etc. they can't publish any.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    A good point, but how do we know it's true? Does Wikileaks solicit material? Are they selective about what they publish? I see what they claim to do, but it's too important to take at face value.
tedunangst 10y ago
What possible corruption is revealed by the quoted email?

harry8 10y ago

"trying to get Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump into office" is a massive assumption and one without much evidence. But yeah anything embarrassing to one's own team tends to get that kind of response. Why wouldn't you suppress evidence of corruption in the next US president, one who evidently hates him. "Why can't we just drone him? hahaha" Or whatever that quote is. He should subvert is principles to support her? Really? Trump is likely (imho) more dangerous than Hilary, that doesn't make Hilary good. Exposing her corruption is a good thing. Making her sweat as much as possible about her corruption is a good thing, as it is for any corrupt and powerful person. And yeah, "publish whatever he gets whenever he gets leaked it immediately" Without vetting it to see if it will get anyone killed. Interesting idea and one that Assange, while having rejected it, may well be more sympathetic to than I am. You're something of a radical there. He gets the leaks and he publishes. Nobody seems to have faulted him on doing that which is exactly what he says he does and always has. His opinions about other stuff don't really affect what he does, which is publish. But I do have sympathy especially for him hating Hilary - if indeed he does. I can imagine not caring for someone who (were they joking?) wants to kill me. I wonder if your support of Trump's opposition would make that different for you in his shoes? Maybe it would.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

zby 10y ago

Do you know about something that Wikileaks did not publish even if they got it? They cannot leak what they do not get. It is clear that their sources use Wikileaks to influence politics. Wikileaks could perhaps withold the information until after the elections - but then they would be accused by the other side.

Tomte 10y ago
Assange said himself that they have material on Trump, but he wouldn't release it, because it is supposedly no worse than the stuff Trump openly says. Fine, I can understand that. Sounds like a lot of noise, no signal. But it's not "releasing everything". It's "deciding what is newsworthy" and "trust me". So it's laughable that in all other regards (mails of regular Turkish citizens, DNC stuff) he and his supporters claim that Wikileaks simply releases everything without any internal motivation or thematic selection.

wallace_f 10y ago

It appears the popular perception of the two candidates is that one of them is a "tin pot" dictator who will silence all his critics and act outside the law Sources: NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-special-prosecutor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/donald-trump-h... Comment above mine: >Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump What is even more disturbing is that a presidential candidate has asked, in what appears to be an off-the-cuff suggestion, about murdering one of her critics through the use of drone strikes: Source: https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assange/ https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assang... That candidate is Hillary Clinton. I find it even more disturbing western media has nearly successfully buried this story. I don't support Trump, but Clinton should not be immune to the laws of this country, or of criticism, as Glenn Greenwald and other respectable journalists are saying.

argonaut 10y ago
That is because the Western media is in the habit of actually trying to verify sources and not making things up. The only "citation" offered by True Pundit, the original source of this claim (and a website I have never heard of) is "according to State Department sources" (http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/ http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wiki...).
- wallace_f 10y ago
  You read that on Snopes - that's what Snopes wrote on their site. CNN just broadcasted this on national television, in what appears more appropriate of taking place in a movie version of Orwell's 1984 than in reality: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... The major media outlets generally have not been figures worthy of ethical praise this election cycle. Meanwhile respectable journalists fighting for civil rights are being arrested and charged with felony crimes for reporting, so I don't buy into that argument in which corporate media, which a small number of corporations own over 95% of what people see and hear, is over- and under-reporting stories entirely out of ethical and professional consideration: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/amy-goodman-north-dakota-oil-access-pipeline-protest-arrest-riot https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/amy-goodman-... You and I both are incredibly lucky to live in a country where those charges against Amy Goodman have been thrown out, but would that have happened to a journalist who was not famous? Or what if there was no video evidence, and it was the police and the DA against a citizen? This story on Hillary is unproven, but so are the allegations against Trump as a sexual assault perpetrator and look at how much media attention that has garnered. I hate Trump but that disparity in and of itself bothers me and in fact lends even more credence to the claim of growing corruption in government. Just also keep in mind, that if this particular claim against Hillary is forged, which is still entirely possible, remember that yet no one has been able to point to any inconsistencies or untruths which would prove that is true. And your comment of "making things up" is a bit inflammatory. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where we can say, "you got live in a world with that government, I'll go live in this one," we all have to live with each other's choices.