14 ms·

By doing this the US is coming to the aid of the many dictators and despots whose crimes Assange has helped reveal. Also, by ignoring the crimes revealed by th

By doing this the US is coming to the aid of the many dictators and despots whose crimes Assange has helped reveal. Also, by ignoring the crimes revealed by the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, the US makes it very clear that war-making cronies rule both parties and would never hold each other accountable for anything. To be clear, the war logs revealed that the US classified information solely because it revealed that the official narrative about why we were involved in those wars was false. Regardless of what one thinks about Assange, it's pretty hard to argue that the crimes revealed by the war logs aren't highly worrisome. Regardless of how one feels about Assange, it's hard to deny that WL was the most successful attempt by any journalist to unmask the widespread US war crimes that we've seen in many decades. My statement above may be too strong... so be it, but surely a court should have been able to decide the fate of the propagandists who misused their power to classify information from the American people. Instead the war criminals just attacked Assange and everyone else including most journalists do as they are asked and turned on a fellow journalist who was willing to sacrifice his freedom for the cause of truth.

StavrosK 8y ago
> the US is coming to the aid of the many dictators and despots whose crimes Assange has helped reveal. I.e. themselves.
- aglavine 8y ago
  You realize he may be a Russian spy, don't you?
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    Does that excuse the war crimes that were committed?
    - darawk 8y ago
      No, but do the war crimes the US committed mean that Assange is not guilty of being a Russian asset?
      - consumer451 8y ago
        You are responding to textbook whataboutism, aka “tu quoque logical fallacy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
        StavrosK 8y ago
        I suggest you read the article you linked.
        narag 8y ago
        I suggest you read the article you linked. Please review carefully the chain of comments, because it seems there could be some misunderstanding there: consumer451 was answering to darawk, not to you. Maybe instead of "to textbook whataboutism" was meant to be "with textbook whataboutism"? Otherwise this thread is total nonsense to me. No surprise either...
        StavrosK 8y ago
        He was responding to them, saying that they, in turn, were responding to textbook whataboutism, ie my comment.
        narag 8y ago
        That's what it seems, but I refused to believe it because then his mind process is totally impenetrable to me.
        StavrosK 8y ago
        Yeah, I don't know. I have decided I don't like it when people drop Wikipedia links and leave, at least explain why you think that is.
  - hnmonkey 8y ago
    Asset. Spies work directly for Russian military intelligence. Assets are the ones they control.
    - tw04 8y ago
      How exactly do you know he isn't working directly for Russian intelligence?
      - hnmonkey 8y ago
        Good question. I don't. But it's much more unlikely that he'd be an actual Russian intelligence employee since they're usually Russian I think. The more simple answer is that he's just being run by them through money, blackmail, extortion, or some other leverage. Why employ someone when you can just get them to do what you want with simple threats?
        Iamhisalt 8y ago
        Seth Rich was a Russian spy too.
        thrower123 8y ago
        Still curious what actually happened there, and who "mugged" him...
        hnmonkey 8y ago
        Do you have evidence of this from a credible source? If so, I think it would be a hell of a scoop.
        pcwalton 8y ago
        Oh, please. Let this ridiculous conspiracy theory die already. There is absolutely no evidence that Seth Rich was anything more than a mid-level DNC employee who was the tragic victim of a robbery gone wrong.
        ryanlol 8y ago
  - gscott 8y ago
    Which is why Trump should want to keep him far away from American soil. Only Assange knows all about the Russian email hacks which could be bad for Trump.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    Has literally any evidence of this been presented other than the extremely specious "a Russian station picked up distribution rights to his show after he had made the episodes"?
    - hnmonkey 8y ago
      Yes, including literally in this thread (copied this link from another comment): https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-the-latest-mueller-indictment-reveals-about-wikileaks-ties-to-russia-and-what-it-doesnt https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-the-latest-mue... And many others, including former CIA director Pompeo too: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/us/politics/mike-pompeo-cia-wikileaks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/us/politics/mike-pompeo-c... Google 'pompeo wikileaks' and you'll get a ton. You seem to be ignoring the evidence people are putting in this post and continually defending WikiLeaks. They're not an altruistic organization.
      - monocasa 8y ago
        The indictment referenced in your first link literally doesn't mention WikiLeaks or Assange. It's pure speculation. Pompeo is a liar, and Clapper was to. Check out all of Clapper's statements he'd make before being nearly immediately contradicted during the whole Snowden thing. After paying attention to statements from national security heads for decades, they are just straight up lying an alarming amount of the time.
        hnmonkey 8y ago
        Ahh, so you're just going to ignore the evidence when presented after you asked for it and attack the people who said it to the country. Got it.
        monocasa 8y ago
        Again, what actual evidence? You literally just posted purely speculative link that wasn't backed up at all by the document it purports to be it's source. And do I need to track down the lies CIA directors have told congress for you, or Pompeo specifically?
staplers 8y ago
People will upvote this comment and complain about the system being broken then turn around and ridicule anyone who votes third party or claims large media companies are corrupt.
- r00fus 8y ago
  Third party is great.... if you have a better election system than plurality voting. See Maine CD-2
  - staplers 8y ago
    The only way towards a better elections system without violent overthrow/succession is voting in representatives who don't align with the current two-party system.
hnmonkey 8y ago
While some of the things that were exposed were certainly illegal and should be handled as such, it's hard to feel any empathy for a guy who is essentially a Russian asset. If you think of him as an extension of Russian military intelligence conducting propaganda wars against its adversaries then it becomes a lot easier to understand why prosecuting him is a genuinely good thing. Russia airing the dirty laundry of others is good for Russia. Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not defending the dirty laundry I'm just saying that the intent behind the messenger in this situation is not at all altruistic.
- roywiggins 8y ago
  It might be accurate to model his operations in two phases. The first, when he was exposing secrets on his own. The second, when (it seems) Russia used him as a deniable way to launder secrets they had stolen into the American press. Exactly when one phase begins and the other ends, whether he knew it was happening at the time, and whether he committed any crimes against the United States during the second phase is murky. Maybe he really should be in trouble for things he did in his second phase; his first phase doesn't mean he didn't commit several crimes later. (this same argument works for Snowden. There are some who argue- without much evidence- that he was always a Russian asset, because he ended up there; but his eventual landing in Russia doesn't retroactively prove he was a Russian agent all along)
  - hnmonkey 8y ago
    I agree with you somewhat. It seems that he initially wanted to buck the system and expose secrets for the purpose of exposing secrets and anarchy. It's possible this was a fantastic cover and he's always worked at someone's behest. Agreed completely with your 2nd phase. I don't think it works for Snowden. I actually believe he was ardently an American patriot who wanted to expose what he thought were illegalities and essentially corruption but didn't think he's survive or get a fair trial here (both of which are unfortunately very possible). I don't think he ended up in Russia at his choosing. I believe he had an original destination in mind (correct me if I'm wrong) but wasn't able to get there before his visa/passport was revoked? Something like that.
foxylad 8y ago
Assange != Wikileaks.
uabstraction 8y ago
Oh please. Spare me the hysterics. You don't even know what he is being charged with and you are crying up a river like this is the greatest travesty of justice ever in the universe. Get a grip. Being a journalist (and I'm using that term rather loosely here) does not give you blanket immunity to the law. You don't get to rob banks and cry that your freedom of speech is being violated when you get thrown in jail for it. Let's see what the charges are before crying about the infringement of free speech.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  what did assange do that is comparable to robbing banks? publishing classified information subject to the laws of a country he has never been to?
oh-kumudo 8y ago
> By doing this the US is coming to the aid of the many dictators and despots whose crimes Assange has helped reveal. Well, Trump surely likes Xi/Kim the 3rd/Saudi Prince/Russia Czar dearly...
wannabeeanon 8y ago
whatever happened to don't shoot the messenger anyway? I could understand if stuff was faked for political purposes but as far as I know everything wikileaks has ever put out is verified as true. It amazes me how people would rather live in ignorance, or have been brainwashed to want to live like that

StavrosK 8y ago

> the US is coming to the aid of the many dictators and despots whose crimes Assange has helped reveal. I.e. themselves.

aglavine 8y ago
You realize he may be a Russian spy, don't you?
- StavrosK 8y ago
  Does that excuse the war crimes that were committed?
  - darawk 8y ago
    No, but do the war crimes the US committed mean that Assange is not guilty of being a Russian asset?
    - consumer451 8y ago
      You are responding to textbook whataboutism, aka “tu quoque logical fallacy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
      - StavrosK 8y ago
        I suggest you read the article you linked.
        narag 8y ago
        I suggest you read the article you linked. Please review carefully the chain of comments, because it seems there could be some misunderstanding there: consumer451 was answering to darawk, not to you. Maybe instead of "to textbook whataboutism" was meant to be "with textbook whataboutism"? Otherwise this thread is total nonsense to me. No surprise either...
        StavrosK 8y ago
        He was responding to them, saying that they, in turn, were responding to textbook whataboutism, ie my comment.
        narag 8y ago
        That's what it seems, but I refused to believe it because then his mind process is totally impenetrable to me.
        StavrosK 8y ago
        Yeah, I don't know. I have decided I don't like it when people drop Wikipedia links and leave, at least explain why you think that is.
- hnmonkey 8y ago
  Asset. Spies work directly for Russian military intelligence. Assets are the ones they control.
  - tw04 8y ago
    How exactly do you know he isn't working directly for Russian intelligence?
    - hnmonkey 8y ago
      Good question. I don't. But it's much more unlikely that he'd be an actual Russian intelligence employee since they're usually Russian I think. The more simple answer is that he's just being run by them through money, blackmail, extortion, or some other leverage. Why employ someone when you can just get them to do what you want with simple threats?
      - Iamhisalt 8y ago
        Seth Rich was a Russian spy too.
        thrower123 8y ago
        Still curious what actually happened there, and who "mugged" him...
        hnmonkey 8y ago
        Do you have evidence of this from a credible source? If so, I think it would be a hell of a scoop.
        pcwalton 8y ago
        Oh, please. Let this ridiculous conspiracy theory die already. There is absolutely no evidence that Seth Rich was anything more than a mid-level DNC employee who was the tragic victim of a robbery gone wrong.
      - ryanlol 8y ago
- gscott 8y ago
  Which is why Trump should want to keep him far away from American soil. Only Assange knows all about the Russian email hacks which could be bad for Trump.
- monocasa 8y ago
  Has literally any evidence of this been presented other than the extremely specious "a Russian station picked up distribution rights to his show after he had made the episodes"?
  - hnmonkey 8y ago
    Yes, including literally in this thread (copied this link from another comment): https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-the-latest-mueller-indictment-reveals-about-wikileaks-ties-to-russia-and-what-it-doesnt https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-the-latest-mue... And many others, including former CIA director Pompeo too: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/us/politics/mike-pompeo-cia-wikileaks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/us/politics/mike-pompeo-c... Google 'pompeo wikileaks' and you'll get a ton. You seem to be ignoring the evidence people are putting in this post and continually defending WikiLeaks. They're not an altruistic organization.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      The indictment referenced in your first link literally doesn't mention WikiLeaks or Assange. It's pure speculation. Pompeo is a liar, and Clapper was to. Check out all of Clapper's statements he'd make before being nearly immediately contradicted during the whole Snowden thing. After paying attention to statements from national security heads for decades, they are just straight up lying an alarming amount of the time.
      - hnmonkey 8y ago
        Ahh, so you're just going to ignore the evidence when presented after you asked for it and attack the people who said it to the country. Got it.
        monocasa 8y ago
        Again, what actual evidence? You literally just posted purely speculative link that wasn't backed up at all by the document it purports to be it's source. And do I need to track down the lies CIA directors have told congress for you, or Pompeo specifically?

staplers 8y ago

People will upvote this comment and complain about the system being broken then turn around and ridicule anyone who votes third party or claims large media companies are corrupt.

r00fus 8y ago
Third party is great.... if you have a better election system than plurality voting. See Maine CD-2
- staplers 8y ago
  The only way towards a better elections system without violent overthrow/succession is voting in representatives who don't align with the current two-party system.

hnmonkey 8y ago

While some of the things that were exposed were certainly illegal and should be handled as such, it's hard to feel any empathy for a guy who is essentially a Russian asset. If you think of him as an extension of Russian military intelligence conducting propaganda wars against its adversaries then it becomes a lot easier to understand why prosecuting him is a genuinely good thing. Russia airing the dirty laundry of others is good for Russia. Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not defending the dirty laundry I'm just saying that the intent behind the messenger in this situation is not at all altruistic.

roywiggins 8y ago
It might be accurate to model his operations in two phases. The first, when he was exposing secrets on his own. The second, when (it seems) Russia used him as a deniable way to launder secrets they had stolen into the American press. Exactly when one phase begins and the other ends, whether he knew it was happening at the time, and whether he committed any crimes against the United States during the second phase is murky. Maybe he really should be in trouble for things he did in his second phase; his first phase doesn't mean he didn't commit several crimes later. (this same argument works for Snowden. There are some who argue- without much evidence- that he was always a Russian asset, because he ended up there; but his eventual landing in Russia doesn't retroactively prove he was a Russian agent all along)
- hnmonkey 8y ago
  I agree with you somewhat. It seems that he initially wanted to buck the system and expose secrets for the purpose of exposing secrets and anarchy. It's possible this was a fantastic cover and he's always worked at someone's behest. Agreed completely with your 2nd phase. I don't think it works for Snowden. I actually believe he was ardently an American patriot who wanted to expose what he thought were illegalities and essentially corruption but didn't think he's survive or get a fair trial here (both of which are unfortunately very possible). I don't think he ended up in Russia at his choosing. I believe he had an original destination in mind (correct me if I'm wrong) but wasn't able to get there before his visa/passport was revoked? Something like that.

foxylad 8y ago

Assange != Wikileaks.

uabstraction 8y ago

Oh please. Spare me the hysterics. You don't even know what he is being charged with and you are crying up a river like this is the greatest travesty of justice ever in the universe. Get a grip. Being a journalist (and I'm using that term rather loosely here) does not give you blanket immunity to the law. You don't get to rob banks and cry that your freedom of speech is being violated when you get thrown in jail for it. Let's see what the charges are before crying about the infringement of free speech.

nyolfen 8y ago
what did assange do that is comparable to robbing banks? publishing classified information subject to the laws of a country he has never been to?

oh-kumudo 8y ago

> By doing this the US is coming to the aid of the many dictators and despots whose crimes Assange has helped reveal. Well, Trump surely likes Xi/Kim the 3rd/Saudi Prince/Russia Czar dearly...

wannabeeanon 8y ago

whatever happened to don't shoot the messenger anyway? I could understand if stuff was faked for political purposes but as far as I know everything wikileaks has ever put out is verified as true. It amazes me how people would rather live in ignorance, or have been brainwashed to want to live like that