12 ms·

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 Ru

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he had an original destination in mind (correct me if I'm wrong) but wasn't able to get there before his visa/passport was revoked?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.
  - 4ad 8y ago
    > I actually believe he was ardently an American patriot Assange is Australian.
    - kjeetgill 8y ago
      They're reffering to Snowden.
    - hnmonkey 8y ago
      The second paragraph wholly refers to Snowden as referenced in the first sentence of it.
  - roywiggins 8y ago
    Yup, I'm agreeing with you there- I don't think Snowden ever intended to end up exiled in Russia. He might be beholden to the Russians now- for his physical safety- he's very likely more blameless in that than Assange might be, I haven't seen actual evidence that he wanted to end up in Russia. Whereas Assange might have (depending on the facts) happily taken help from the Russian state in the name of sowing chaos. Assange has no particular ties to the US, and might have found a way to square it with whatever his morals are. Or he found an encrypted archive in his email and he just published it, provenance unknown.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    He absolutely didn't end up in Russia of his own choosing. He planned to stay in Hong Kong, and he leaked a list of hacked Chinese targets in an attempt to gain the PRC's favor, but they kicked him out as soon as he had nothing more of interest, just as you would expect. https://amp.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1266777/exclusive-snowden-safe-hong-kong-more-us-cyberspying-details-revealed https://amp.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1266777/exclusiv...
- wallace_f 8y ago
  >Russia used him as a deniable way to launder secrets they had stolen into the American press. I have never seen proof of this accusation? Can you link me to it? Not the accusation, but proof? What is it: was he "used" like you said, or mislead, or intentionally aiding Russia? To be fair the DWS scandal is a real problem, a big deal, and a threat to our democracy... and nobody was seriously punished for that. DWS is hardly the pariah that Assange is. And this happened during your second phase.
  - hnmonkey 8y ago
    There's literal proof throughout this post. In fact, I posted some too. There are definitely levels of threats to American democracy. If DWS refers to Wasserman-Schultz then it pales in comparison to an enemy foreign state's military intelligence corrupting the American government.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      See you keep saying you can convince me, but still wont show me the proot that will. Do you really believe the Iraq Warlogs revealing death, torture, war crimes, and lying is somehow worse than literally subverting American democracy in a presidential primary? Now, I don't want to defend Assange's every single motive, but the DWS scandal was pure corruption, while for whatever bad Assange has done that you keep promising to show me, he has clearly shown bravery in doing some good along the way. And by the way, revealing war crimes is not anti-American. Liberty and justice are American principles. There will always be corruption and always a need to reveal it.
      - hnmonkey 8y ago
        > Do you really believe the Iraq Warlogs revealing death, torture, war crimes, and lying is somehow worse than literally subverting American democracy in a presidential primary? It's interesting... you're asking me if I really believe something that I didn't ever say and implying I did. I actually compared the Wasserman-Schultz situation (which I think is incredibly overblown) to a sovereign foreign government's military intelligence corrupting the American government. And yes, when comparing those two things, the latter is far more worse.
- krrrh 8y ago
  Let's recall the time that Wikileaks promoted unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about the Panama Papers which contained loads of damaging information about Putin (along with plenty of well-known westerners), in a blatant attempt to redirect the spotlight off of Russian corruption. The official Wikileaks twitter account essentially providing the outline for a propaganda piece on RT within hours. https://www.rt.com/news/338683-wikileaks-usaid-putin-attack/ https://www.rt.com/news/338683-wikileaks-usaid-putin-attack/ And of course he did produce a TV show for Russian state television. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tomorrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tomorrow
whatshisface 8y ago
Why would you believe that he was a Russian asset? Is there any indication that he would not publish information critical of Putin if it was sent to him?
- mejari 8y ago
  >Is there any indication that he would not publish information critical of Putin if it was sent to him? Yes. We have examples of exactly that happening. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    That's not quite an example - it's an unnamed source, and Assage defends himself by saying that it was unverifiable (which we can neither confirm nor deny).
    - mejari 8y ago
      Sounds like excuse-making when provided what you asked for.
      - hnmonkey 8y ago
        There are multiple posters doing this throughout this post. Finding some way to discredit any evidence after they've asked for evidence and then were presented with it.
        whatshisface 8y ago
        I'm not "finding a way to dismiss" it, I'm just applying some skepticism to the hearsay about the geopolitical affairs of, of all people, spies.
  - buboard 8y ago
xkcd-sucks 8y ago
Well yeah, a US asset isn't going to publish the dirt on their patron. And nobody's asset will probably not enjoy much success publishing anything
- mjevans 8y ago
  In a world spies I could easily believe an asset would publish either minor/mostly harmless but still secret info and/or info of a party within their country or for rival factions within their country. I just wouldn't even speculate on that unless there was a compelling reason to make such an assumption and also a way of confirming the theory.
buboard 8y ago
But this argument is defending the dirty laundry with an ad hominem attack. The fact being that he will no longer be able to air any government's dirty laundry from the prison and this kind of argument says it's for the better.
- hnmonkey 8y ago
  Huh? I said I wasn't defending the dirty laundry and that there's definitely some illegal stuff in there that should be prosecuted. The fact that he won't be able to air any government's dirty laundry is for the better. I can guarantee Russia will continue to air other country's dirty laundry with impunity in the future, with or without Assange.
  - buboard 8y ago
    So, you think there should be punishment for airing other countries dirty laundry? Should e.g. the US punish the turks for airing the Saudi's dirty business? I think that s not a defensible position
    - hnmonkey 8y ago
      I'm not going to bother responding to you anymore. You're definitely twisting my words into something you'd like to attack.
      - buboard 8y ago
        just to clarify > Russia will continue to air other country's dirty laundry with impunity your words.
  - Forbo 8y ago
    > The fact that he won't be able to air any government's dirty laundry is for the better. I'm not sure I understand. How is it for the better? Shouldn't wrongdoing be brought to light, no matter the perpetrator?
resters 8y ago
> essentially a Russian asset This is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. Obviously a platform like Wikileaks can be "weaponized" by any party against another party. I think it's a question of what is the most relevant aspect of the leak overall, not who leaked it or why. For instance, suppose someone had leaked detailed information about the misconduct of Jerry Sandusky several years before it became widely known. Would it matter if the leaker had been affiliated with a rival football program? What I think is so ingenious about Wikileaks is that by releasing the full documents and data sets, it is very easy to take the leaked information simply at face value without worrying about what may have been selectively leaked and why. In the case of the HRC emails, there were a few concerning themes regarding campaign finance and the Foundation, but those items could easily have been diffused if HRC had owned up to it and offered to have various experts dig deeper into the financials to show that nothing unusual was going on. For some reason the campaign chose a strategy of claiming the emails were fake, which was soon revealed as a lie by the DKIM/DomainKeys signatures on the emails themselves. So unfortunately in the case of the HRC emails, the campaign chose a bad strategy and then got caught in a lie, all of which was much more consequential than the few bits of information that were potentially worthy of a deeper dive. Also, one has to believe that WL would not have published damning information about Trump if it had been available. There is no evidence to support that claim either. My take all along has been that all that is required for WL to be a force of good is for there to be no selective releasing or editorially driven redaction, and for there to be no evidence that WL sat on important information to suppress it. Neither of these have been the case. WL did maximize the PR value of the HRC/Podesta emails, but I view that as being (especially in hindsight) more of a fundraising/bootstrapping decision than an editorial one. There wasn't anything "smoking gun"-like in the latter emails, they were all apparently released at random to much fanfare. So anyway, I think the point is in the laundry itself, and that intent matters much less than it would with more narrowly focused leaks, such as those that traditional journalists typically use/abuse.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  I think he is too dumb to realize he was used as a Russian asset. The attention whoring he is known for blinded him. While dumb, I don't think he has specifically kept secrets about Trump. His actions show a definite agenda. Act two, he just doesn't realize that it is someone else's agenda.
tibyat 8y ago
really? with no source whatsoever?
cwkoss 8y ago
Russia airing the dirty laundry through a side channel is MUCH more benevolent than the other things (like blackmailing our world leaders) they could do with this. I don't think all of Wikileaks' revelations are from Russia, but even if they all are - and Russia had selfish motivations - it was a benevolent act toward the world. Truth is power, and revealing the truth to the powerless is never an evil act.
- misterprime 8y ago
  Well said. Thank you.
- plandis 8y ago
  I fully expect you to publically release all your emails. Even if you don’t do anything illegally. Truth is power, after all even if nothing illegal was done.
  - cwkoss 8y ago
    If I ever am employed in a position where my salary is funded by taxpayer money, I will do whatever I can to make all of my correspondence and documents public ASAP.
- resters 8y ago
  Exactly. As I put it in another comment, if someone leaked information that led to Jerry Sandusky being stopped several years sooner, would it matter if the leaker was affiliated with a rival football program? Because of how WL releases full, minimally redacted documents, there is really no reason to worry about the details. Failures of journalistic integrity happen because of strategic omissions or intentional misdirection. WL essentially can't do that because it releases the source material in essentially raw form.
  - bestnameever 8y ago
    > WL essentially can't do that because it releases the source material in essentially raw form. But they can decline to release certain groups of documents that go contrary to whichever narrative they are trying to build.
oh-kumudo 8y ago
It is clear that Assange is both libertarian and anti-globalist. His attitude towards 2016 elections is predictable and consistent with his world view.
- c3534l 8y ago
  > both libertarian and anti-globalist Those are mutually exclusive concepts.
  - oh-kumudo 8y ago
    In which way? Libertarians aren't necessarily globalists. They are just indifferent towards the concept. But if the globalists weave in too much influence, it would definitely been seen from an libertrain's perspective, a threat to their liberty.
    - c3534l 8y ago
      How does being free trade and open-borders not make you a globalist? Those are like the primary pillars of globalization.
      - hermitdev 8y ago
        Not all libertarians are the same. I tend towards libertarianism, but also believe in enforced borders and legal entry. Likewise I believe free trade means everyone plays on equal terms. If, say China, is going to impose a 30% tariff on US goods, I think a reciprocal tariff is warranted. Libertarianism is not outright anarchy, it is about limited government.
      - oh-kumudo 8y ago
        I don't think there are many self-claimed libertarians actually voice for open-borders. It is just an extension of interpretation out of the theorists. Limited government doesn't mean a complete denial of necessary national governance. It can be easily argued that void of such governance isn't in the interests of those libertarian ideals.
husujebhehe 8y ago
Any citation for your opinion because you're completely full of shit. HN is completely owned by pro to government assets. Fuck this community and the highly bias moderators.
Bendingo 8y ago
> ... a guy who is essentially a Russian asset > ... extension of Russian military intelligence > ... Russia airing the dirty laundry of others > ... good for Russia I see that the western obsession with Russia continues unabated. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with Russia, and the suggestion that Assange is a Russian asset is unsubstantiated (just like all the other "Russia did it" claims). [1] [2]. Russians are nowadays even blamed for MP's speeding tickets [3] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/the-vermont-hack-debacle-doesnt-mean-attributing-cyberattacks-is-impossible/512078/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/the-v... [2] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/russian-hacking-attacks-us-power-grid-sewage-explosions-a8462691.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/13/labour-mp-deliberately-misled-police-over-speeding-court-told https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/13/labour-mp-de...
ako 8y ago
Did you just write this about Assange, or about trump?
saalweachter 8y ago
My own opinion on this is going to vary a lot depending on what the papers say when unsealed. If the US is explicitly going after him for his role in disseminating classified information provided to him by whistle-blowers, I'll be disappointed, a little outraged, and unfortunately not completely surprised, since the US has jailed journalists before. If the US is claiming he is a foreign agent acting against the US, and is willing and able to prove that in a court of law, without any reference to his role as a journalist accepting information from US whistle-blowers, I'll be pleased, a little surprised, and a bit suspicious that it's really about the whistle-blowing.

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.
- 4ad 8y ago
  > I actually believe he was ardently an American patriot Assange is Australian.
  - kjeetgill 8y ago
    They're reffering to Snowden.
  - hnmonkey 8y ago
    The second paragraph wholly refers to Snowden as referenced in the first sentence of it.
- roywiggins 8y ago
  Yup, I'm agreeing with you there- I don't think Snowden ever intended to end up exiled in Russia. He might be beholden to the Russians now- for his physical safety- he's very likely more blameless in that than Assange might be, I haven't seen actual evidence that he wanted to end up in Russia. Whereas Assange might have (depending on the facts) happily taken help from the Russian state in the name of sowing chaos. Assange has no particular ties to the US, and might have found a way to square it with whatever his morals are. Or he found an encrypted archive in his email and he just published it, provenance unknown.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  He absolutely didn't end up in Russia of his own choosing. He planned to stay in Hong Kong, and he leaked a list of hacked Chinese targets in an attempt to gain the PRC's favor, but they kicked him out as soon as he had nothing more of interest, just as you would expect. https://amp.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1266777/exclusive-snowden-safe-hong-kong-more-us-cyberspying-details-revealed https://amp.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1266777/exclusiv...
wallace_f 8y ago
>Russia used him as a deniable way to launder secrets they had stolen into the American press. I have never seen proof of this accusation? Can you link me to it? Not the accusation, but proof? What is it: was he "used" like you said, or mislead, or intentionally aiding Russia? To be fair the DWS scandal is a real problem, a big deal, and a threat to our democracy... and nobody was seriously punished for that. DWS is hardly the pariah that Assange is. And this happened during your second phase.
- hnmonkey 8y ago
  There's literal proof throughout this post. In fact, I posted some too. There are definitely levels of threats to American democracy. If DWS refers to Wasserman-Schultz then it pales in comparison to an enemy foreign state's military intelligence corrupting the American government.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    See you keep saying you can convince me, but still wont show me the proot that will. Do you really believe the Iraq Warlogs revealing death, torture, war crimes, and lying is somehow worse than literally subverting American democracy in a presidential primary? Now, I don't want to defend Assange's every single motive, but the DWS scandal was pure corruption, while for whatever bad Assange has done that you keep promising to show me, he has clearly shown bravery in doing some good along the way. And by the way, revealing war crimes is not anti-American. Liberty and justice are American principles. There will always be corruption and always a need to reveal it.
    - hnmonkey 8y ago
      > Do you really believe the Iraq Warlogs revealing death, torture, war crimes, and lying is somehow worse than literally subverting American democracy in a presidential primary? It's interesting... you're asking me if I really believe something that I didn't ever say and implying I did. I actually compared the Wasserman-Schultz situation (which I think is incredibly overblown) to a sovereign foreign government's military intelligence corrupting the American government. And yes, when comparing those two things, the latter is far more worse.
krrrh 8y ago
Let's recall the time that Wikileaks promoted unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about the Panama Papers which contained loads of damaging information about Putin (along with plenty of well-known westerners), in a blatant attempt to redirect the spotlight off of Russian corruption. The official Wikileaks twitter account essentially providing the outline for a propaganda piece on RT within hours. https://www.rt.com/news/338683-wikileaks-usaid-putin-attack/ https://www.rt.com/news/338683-wikileaks-usaid-putin-attack/ And of course he did produce a TV show for Russian state television. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tomorrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tomorrow

whatshisface 8y ago

Why would you believe that he was a Russian asset? Is there any indication that he would not publish information critical of Putin if it was sent to him?

mejari 8y ago
>Is there any indication that he would not publish information critical of Putin if it was sent to him? Yes. We have examples of exactly that happening. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
- whatshisface 8y ago
  That's not quite an example - it's an unnamed source, and Assage defends himself by saying that it was unverifiable (which we can neither confirm nor deny).
  - mejari 8y ago
    Sounds like excuse-making when provided what you asked for.
    - hnmonkey 8y ago
      There are multiple posters doing this throughout this post. Finding some way to discredit any evidence after they've asked for evidence and then were presented with it.
      - whatshisface 8y ago
        I'm not "finding a way to dismiss" it, I'm just applying some skepticism to the hearsay about the geopolitical affairs of, of all people, spies.
- buboard 8y ago

xkcd-sucks 8y ago

Well yeah, a US asset isn't going to publish the dirt on their patron. And nobody's asset will probably not enjoy much success publishing anything

mjevans 8y ago
In a world spies I could easily believe an asset would publish either minor/mostly harmless but still secret info and/or info of a party within their country or for rival factions within their country. I just wouldn't even speculate on that unless there was a compelling reason to make such an assumption and also a way of confirming the theory.

buboard 8y ago

But this argument is defending the dirty laundry with an ad hominem attack. The fact being that he will no longer be able to air any government's dirty laundry from the prison and this kind of argument says it's for the better.

hnmonkey 8y ago
Huh? I said I wasn't defending the dirty laundry and that there's definitely some illegal stuff in there that should be prosecuted. The fact that he won't be able to air any government's dirty laundry is for the better. I can guarantee Russia will continue to air other country's dirty laundry with impunity in the future, with or without Assange.
- buboard 8y ago
  So, you think there should be punishment for airing other countries dirty laundry? Should e.g. the US punish the turks for airing the Saudi's dirty business? I think that s not a defensible position
  - hnmonkey 8y ago
    I'm not going to bother responding to you anymore. You're definitely twisting my words into something you'd like to attack.
    - buboard 8y ago
      just to clarify > Russia will continue to air other country's dirty laundry with impunity your words.
- Forbo 8y ago
  > The fact that he won't be able to air any government's dirty laundry is for the better. I'm not sure I understand. How is it for the better? Shouldn't wrongdoing be brought to light, no matter the perpetrator?

resters 8y ago

> essentially a Russian asset This is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. Obviously a platform like Wikileaks can be "weaponized" by any party against another party. I think it's a question of what is the most relevant aspect of the leak overall, not who leaked it or why. For instance, suppose someone had leaked detailed information about the misconduct of Jerry Sandusky several years before it became widely known. Would it matter if the leaker had been affiliated with a rival football program? What I think is so ingenious about Wikileaks is that by releasing the full documents and data sets, it is very easy to take the leaked information simply at face value without worrying about what may have been selectively leaked and why. In the case of the HRC emails, there were a few concerning themes regarding campaign finance and the Foundation, but those items could easily have been diffused if HRC had owned up to it and offered to have various experts dig deeper into the financials to show that nothing unusual was going on. For some reason the campaign chose a strategy of claiming the emails were fake, which was soon revealed as a lie by the DKIM/DomainKeys signatures on the emails themselves. So unfortunately in the case of the HRC emails, the campaign chose a bad strategy and then got caught in a lie, all of which was much more consequential than the few bits of information that were potentially worthy of a deeper dive. Also, one has to believe that WL would not have published damning information about Trump if it had been available. There is no evidence to support that claim either. My take all along has been that all that is required for WL to be a force of good is for there to be no selective releasing or editorially driven redaction, and for there to be no evidence that WL sat on important information to suppress it. Neither of these have been the case. WL did maximize the PR value of the HRC/Podesta emails, but I view that as being (especially in hindsight) more of a fundraising/bootstrapping decision than an editorial one. There wasn't anything "smoking gun"-like in the latter emails, they were all apparently released at random to much fanfare. So anyway, I think the point is in the laundry itself, and that intent matters much less than it would with more narrowly focused leaks, such as those that traditional journalists typically use/abuse.

paulie_a 8y ago
I think he is too dumb to realize he was used as a Russian asset. The attention whoring he is known for blinded him. While dumb, I don't think he has specifically kept secrets about Trump. His actions show a definite agenda. Act two, he just doesn't realize that it is someone else's agenda.

tibyat 8y ago

really? with no source whatsoever?

cwkoss 8y ago

Russia airing the dirty laundry through a side channel is MUCH more benevolent than the other things (like blackmailing our world leaders) they could do with this. I don't think all of Wikileaks' revelations are from Russia, but even if they all are - and Russia had selfish motivations - it was a benevolent act toward the world. Truth is power, and revealing the truth to the powerless is never an evil act.

misterprime 8y ago
Well said. Thank you.
plandis 8y ago
I fully expect you to publically release all your emails. Even if you don’t do anything illegally. Truth is power, after all even if nothing illegal was done.
- cwkoss 8y ago
  If I ever am employed in a position where my salary is funded by taxpayer money, I will do whatever I can to make all of my correspondence and documents public ASAP.
resters 8y ago
Exactly. As I put it in another comment, if someone leaked information that led to Jerry Sandusky being stopped several years sooner, would it matter if the leaker was affiliated with a rival football program? Because of how WL releases full, minimally redacted documents, there is really no reason to worry about the details. Failures of journalistic integrity happen because of strategic omissions or intentional misdirection. WL essentially can't do that because it releases the source material in essentially raw form.
- bestnameever 8y ago
  > WL essentially can't do that because it releases the source material in essentially raw form. But they can decline to release certain groups of documents that go contrary to whichever narrative they are trying to build.

oh-kumudo 8y ago

It is clear that Assange is both libertarian and anti-globalist. His attitude towards 2016 elections is predictable and consistent with his world view.

c3534l 8y ago
> both libertarian and anti-globalist Those are mutually exclusive concepts.
- oh-kumudo 8y ago
  In which way? Libertarians aren't necessarily globalists. They are just indifferent towards the concept. But if the globalists weave in too much influence, it would definitely been seen from an libertrain's perspective, a threat to their liberty.
  - c3534l 8y ago
    How does being free trade and open-borders not make you a globalist? Those are like the primary pillars of globalization.
    - hermitdev 8y ago
      Not all libertarians are the same. I tend towards libertarianism, but also believe in enforced borders and legal entry. Likewise I believe free trade means everyone plays on equal terms. If, say China, is going to impose a 30% tariff on US goods, I think a reciprocal tariff is warranted. Libertarianism is not outright anarchy, it is about limited government.
    - oh-kumudo 8y ago
      I don't think there are many self-claimed libertarians actually voice for open-borders. It is just an extension of interpretation out of the theorists. Limited government doesn't mean a complete denial of necessary national governance. It can be easily argued that void of such governance isn't in the interests of those libertarian ideals.

husujebhehe 8y ago

Any citation for your opinion because you're completely full of shit. HN is completely owned by pro to government assets. Fuck this community and the highly bias moderators.

Bendingo 8y ago

> ... a guy who is essentially a Russian asset > ... extension of Russian military intelligence > ... Russia airing the dirty laundry of others > ... good for Russia I see that the western obsession with Russia continues unabated. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with Russia, and the suggestion that Assange is a Russian asset is unsubstantiated (just like all the other "Russia did it" claims). [1] [2]. Russians are nowadays even blamed for MP's speeding tickets [3] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/the-vermont-hack-debacle-doesnt-mean-attributing-cyberattacks-is-impossible/512078/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/the-v... [2] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/russian-hacking-attacks-us-power-grid-sewage-explosions-a8462691.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/13/labour-mp-deliberately-misled-police-over-speeding-court-told https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/13/labour-mp-de...

ako 8y ago

Did you just write this about Assange, or about trump?

saalweachter 8y ago

My own opinion on this is going to vary a lot depending on what the papers say when unsealed. If the US is explicitly going after him for his role in disseminating classified information provided to him by whistle-blowers, I'll be disappointed, a little outraged, and unfortunately not completely surprised, since the US has jailed journalists before. If the US is claiming he is a foreign agent acting against the US, and is willing and able to prove that in a court of law, without any reference to his role as a journalist accepting information from US whistle-blowers, I'll be pleased, a little surprised, and a bit suspicious that it's really about the whistle-blowing.