3 ms·

Well, presumably their confidence to the US government helped the US in some way, or the their relationship would be pretty brief.

• varjag 10y ago
  There's not necessarily a relationship, it's often just people blurting rumours at a reception, commentary from opposition activists and so on. What's their abuse here? That years ago, they had enough sympathy to a nation that Assange is on crusade against now?
  • tedks 10y ago
    'Blurted' (thinking this is how a diplomatic reception works is straining) utterances don't end up on Wikileaks, and the united states isn't different now, for better or worse, than it was any number of years ago. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this. If you don't personally agree with Assange that's one thing, but I think it's irrational to think that accepting his goals, you should still be forgiving of collaborators.
    • varjag 10y ago
      No, I'm actually pretty sure assangedom comes as a package, you don't get to cherry-pick whom you oppose.