7 ms·

It saddens me to see so many people I consider “progressives” who are cheering this on like a crowd of mobs about to burn a witch.

__Joker 8y ago
At the end of the day,I think everybody knew or had an idea that how this is going to end. Unfortunately, Assange and in effect WikiLeaks took a political and partisan position, and gave the moral footing for the authorities to that end.
- metildaa 8y ago
  So far it has yet to end, which is quite surprising. Sad to see how far my country will stoop to attempt to abscond with a foriegner, he will not have a fair trial if extradited.
  - brokenmachine 8y ago
    I'm Australian - it's sad for me to see how little our government will do to protect one of our own who has helped to expose the war crimes of our allies, and has himself still not been charged with any crime, notwithstanding clearly transparent character smear rape allegations that have been dropped anyway. And when asked his position on the issue of an Australian citizen in effectively indefinite imprisonment, our pathetic excuse for a Prime Minister simply dodges the question by making lewd comments about the questioner. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/pamela-anderson-is-not-happy-with-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison/news-story/6933a146bf9cd94591dffc55f030cd11 https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/pamela...
- sneak 8y ago
  > Unfortunately, Assange and in effect WikiLeaks took a political and partisan position, and gave the moral footing for the authorities to that end. So free speech, due process, and publishing rights are only granted to the nonpartisan? Are you kidding me? This is part of a coordinated and well-funded effort by the CIA to reduce sympathy for him and his cause, so that they can deny him human rights without a big stink as soon as he's in US or US-ally custody. It's absolutely shameful.
  - __Joker 8y ago
    Not sure which set of free speech you subscribe to but I really doubt WikiLeaks publishing stealing information falls under the definition of US constitution of free speech. It is NOT. I am not sure what publish rights you are talking about. You must be kidding yourself, if I may borrow your language, to talk about publishing rights and WikiLeaks in the same breath. The thing is I do love the principle on which WikiLeaks was founded. Is what WikiLeaks doing legal ? Hell, no. But morally I know it is the right thing to do. Again, as mentioned elsewhere, my problem with WikiLeaks is has taken a side. And telling the truth selectively and conveniently. And that does not deserve the moral approval, which I would have given earlier.
    - thecatspaw 8y ago
      Agreed, whereas previously they told the unconvenient truth, they grew into a political outlet asking their twitter followers to vote for specific presidency candidates
    - rndgermandude 8y ago
      >I really doubt WikiLeaks publishing stealing information falls under the definition of US constitution of free speech. It actually is legal to publish stolen information, and there is a lot of legal precedent in the US saying it is. And that's a good thing as it is sometimes the only way to hold those in power accountable for their actions they'd otherwise hide. See e.g. Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, US torture program, Snowden, Panama papers, just to name a few, all of which were at least in part based on leaked (read: stolen) information. Also the Trump administration is leaking like a sieve these days. Do you consider the journalists who publish such information criminals too? This is legally different to stealing the information yourself and/or instructing somebody else on how to steal information. I'd wager they'll at least try to pin the latter on Assange if they ever get him in a court.
    - sneak 8y ago
      > Again, as mentioned elsewhere, my problem with WikiLeaks is has taken a side. Being anti-Democratic Party is not inherently being pro-anyone-else. The Democratic Party was being shady as fuck and regardless of who you or they prefer to be or not be president, exposing their corruption was valuable and useful—irrespective of where that information came from or who it may have indirectly benefited. I do not think the results from that publication constitutes Wikileaks "taking a side". People could make the argument that they could have assumed that publishing would have had a certain outcome or effect upon the election, but one cannot reasonably assert that they would have had to reach the exact same conclusion about the effects of publishing. It's a big stretch to ascribe motive or bias based on your assumption that you can't assert someone else must have made (especially without the benefit of hindsight). Which "side" precisely do you think Wikileaks has taken, and what specific facts support such a conclusion?
- colordrops 8y ago
  What moral footing is that? * There is no unbiased media outlet * There are no laws against partisan media outlets * It's not even clear that Wikileaks is partisan, despite rantings to the opposite effect * Nothing wikileaks has released has ever been proven to be false.
  - bayesian_horse 8y ago
    I think it's pretty clear wikileaks has been used in a partisan manner in the 2016 presidential elections. I don't believe most serious journalists would have published most of Podesta's emails, if any. Especially considering the probable sources.
    - colordrops 8y ago
      Why would they not publish these emails?
      - bayesian_horse 8y ago
        Because most of them are completely irrelevant and there is very little informational benefit to warrant this privacy violation. I mean... risotto recipes? After wikileaks published the material journalists did cover some of it. And even so, they partly regret that, in light of what we know now.
    - harry8 8y ago
      "serious journalists" Approved by the state, perhaps?
      - bayesian_horse 8y ago
        Those with a particular "traditional" ethics standard. Which is getting muddier by the day.
        harry8 8y ago
- richardknop 8y ago
  Should Buzzfeed journalists be prosecuted for publishing the dossier about golden shower, at least parts of which have been proven to be false? As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with publishing information in partisan manner. Has anything Wikileaks published been proven to be doctored or edited in any way? I am under the impression not even DNC is disputing authenticity of the emails.
  - danso 8y ago
    How much of the dossier came from systems hacked by a foreign power?
    - colordrops 8y ago
      It doesn't matter legally or otherwise.
      - danso 8y ago
        I agree but the parent commenter implication that an outlet could be prosecuted for printing the Steele dossier is a non sequitur for many reasons here.
vallesmarineris 8y ago
I have seen no such aggressive, hateful and awful language from a progressive person. I think most people who identify as progressive would never use such violent words, as progressives are more likely to be compassionate and kind to others. I have only seen people like you use awful words like that - who are these progressives saying that? I think there are none. I think it's just you, making up lies about people on the left being violent and awful. Nobody is "cheering this on like a crowd of mobs about to burn a witch". That is awful. Why would you say such a thing? You are trolling and trying to create a hyper-political atmosphere on HN, where the only allowable opinions are hyper-conservative, and violent, hateful words are falsely attributed to progressives.
- clatan 8y ago
  No, he's absolutely right. And your idealization of 'progressives' is completely laughable.
- collyw 8y ago
  Check out Sargon of Akad's youtube channel, he does a good job of documenting and commenting on "progressives" especially when they are behaving hatefully or violently. (Any reason for the down votes? You may not like Sargon, but he he addresses exactly what the OP is talking about a lot of the time.)
- subroutine 8y ago
  You must not be active on twitter. It's probably true the left is on average more passive, but to claim it's unlikely any progressive would spew vitrol or be violent?? Ever heard of antifa?
- richardknop 8y ago
  Have you read the other thread about Julian Assange on HN today with hundreds of replies? It's full of people calling him a traitor and/or an evil Russian spy that should go to prison for life. Many sensible comments defending Assange as a journalist got down voted all the way to the bottom.
  - 8y ago
creato 8y ago
No one here knows what he is even charged with. I highly doubt it's something we expect. Plenty of media outlets passed information along similarly to Wikileaks. Any charges limited to actions we know publicly are going to be a disaster on so many levels, and everyone involved knows it. It would be monumentally stupid to pursue charges based only on what we know publicly. The NYT story makes this clear. I suggest withholding judgement until we see the actual indictment. The other indictments that are (possibly) related that have been made public have provided a lot of detail and evidence.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  Totally agree. Though open source intelligence suggests that Assange did launder information he received from Russian intelligence services. He played a key role in the chain of them influencing the presidential election. To me this is not a case of clearly being a crime or clearly not being one. Room for further investigation and a trial.
intothemild 8y ago
Yeah whilst we don't know the indictments yet, I think it's safe to say that they might be related to the documents which he published from the Russian hacking. The rumors that he knew that he was talking with the GRU and that the documents were stolen by the Russian government is one thing.. But the idea he had foresight that the Russian government was trying to get Trump elected is something that might come out. Progressives, like myself who supported Wikileaks are curious at what Mueller has put together. If the worst is true, then Assange used Wikileaks as a tool to try to make sure Clinton did not become president. It's known that Clinton did not like Assange before the hacking leak, it's my guess that Assange published those documents in some effort to undermine her election chances. Part of me, think's that's OK. if it's OK for someone to come out with some crimes that someone might have committed and stand up and testify to that, then it's in the voting public's best interest to have all the facts.. Then again, there's the possibly non-zero chance he knew that this was coming from the GRU or at least the Russian government, which anyone in his org should have had experience in asking themselves the larger questions around this...
bsder 8y ago
Proof demanded. Any good Assange did blowing the whistle has been completely undermined by his collusion with Russia to help thwart democratic institutions and processes. I classify Snowden as a patriotic whistleblower. I classify Assange as a Russian agent. Treat both appropriately.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  The case on Snowden isn't that clear, either. I do believe he did something good for the world overall. I'm not entirely convinced he hasn't been working for the Russians at some time before or after the original leaking.

__Joker 8y ago

At the end of the day,I think everybody knew or had an idea that how this is going to end. Unfortunately, Assange and in effect WikiLeaks took a political and partisan position, and gave the moral footing for the authorities to that end.

metildaa 8y ago
So far it has yet to end, which is quite surprising. Sad to see how far my country will stoop to attempt to abscond with a foriegner, he will not have a fair trial if extradited.
- brokenmachine 8y ago
  I'm Australian - it's sad for me to see how little our government will do to protect one of our own who has helped to expose the war crimes of our allies, and has himself still not been charged with any crime, notwithstanding clearly transparent character smear rape allegations that have been dropped anyway. And when asked his position on the issue of an Australian citizen in effectively indefinite imprisonment, our pathetic excuse for a Prime Minister simply dodges the question by making lewd comments about the questioner. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/pamela-anderson-is-not-happy-with-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison/news-story/6933a146bf9cd94591dffc55f030cd11 https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/pamela...
sneak 8y ago
> Unfortunately, Assange and in effect WikiLeaks took a political and partisan position, and gave the moral footing for the authorities to that end. So free speech, due process, and publishing rights are only granted to the nonpartisan? Are you kidding me? This is part of a coordinated and well-funded effort by the CIA to reduce sympathy for him and his cause, so that they can deny him human rights without a big stink as soon as he's in US or US-ally custody. It's absolutely shameful.
- __Joker 8y ago
  Not sure which set of free speech you subscribe to but I really doubt WikiLeaks publishing stealing information falls under the definition of US constitution of free speech. It is NOT. I am not sure what publish rights you are talking about. You must be kidding yourself, if I may borrow your language, to talk about publishing rights and WikiLeaks in the same breath. The thing is I do love the principle on which WikiLeaks was founded. Is what WikiLeaks doing legal ? Hell, no. But morally I know it is the right thing to do. Again, as mentioned elsewhere, my problem with WikiLeaks is has taken a side. And telling the truth selectively and conveniently. And that does not deserve the moral approval, which I would have given earlier.
  - thecatspaw 8y ago
    Agreed, whereas previously they told the unconvenient truth, they grew into a political outlet asking their twitter followers to vote for specific presidency candidates
  - rndgermandude 8y ago
    >I really doubt WikiLeaks publishing stealing information falls under the definition of US constitution of free speech. It actually is legal to publish stolen information, and there is a lot of legal precedent in the US saying it is. And that's a good thing as it is sometimes the only way to hold those in power accountable for their actions they'd otherwise hide. See e.g. Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, US torture program, Snowden, Panama papers, just to name a few, all of which were at least in part based on leaked (read: stolen) information. Also the Trump administration is leaking like a sieve these days. Do you consider the journalists who publish such information criminals too? This is legally different to stealing the information yourself and/or instructing somebody else on how to steal information. I'd wager they'll at least try to pin the latter on Assange if they ever get him in a court.
  - sneak 8y ago
    > Again, as mentioned elsewhere, my problem with WikiLeaks is has taken a side. Being anti-Democratic Party is not inherently being pro-anyone-else. The Democratic Party was being shady as fuck and regardless of who you or they prefer to be or not be president, exposing their corruption was valuable and useful—irrespective of where that information came from or who it may have indirectly benefited. I do not think the results from that publication constitutes Wikileaks "taking a side". People could make the argument that they could have assumed that publishing would have had a certain outcome or effect upon the election, but one cannot reasonably assert that they would have had to reach the exact same conclusion about the effects of publishing. It's a big stretch to ascribe motive or bias based on your assumption that you can't assert someone else must have made (especially without the benefit of hindsight). Which "side" precisely do you think Wikileaks has taken, and what specific facts support such a conclusion?
colordrops 8y ago
What moral footing is that? * There is no unbiased media outlet * There are no laws against partisan media outlets * It's not even clear that Wikileaks is partisan, despite rantings to the opposite effect * Nothing wikileaks has released has ever been proven to be false.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  I think it's pretty clear wikileaks has been used in a partisan manner in the 2016 presidential elections. I don't believe most serious journalists would have published most of Podesta's emails, if any. Especially considering the probable sources.
  - colordrops 8y ago
    Why would they not publish these emails?
    - bayesian_horse 8y ago
      Because most of them are completely irrelevant and there is very little informational benefit to warrant this privacy violation. I mean... risotto recipes? After wikileaks published the material journalists did cover some of it. And even so, they partly regret that, in light of what we know now.
  - harry8 8y ago
    "serious journalists" Approved by the state, perhaps?
    - bayesian_horse 8y ago
      Those with a particular "traditional" ethics standard. Which is getting muddier by the day.
      - harry8 8y ago
richardknop 8y ago
Should Buzzfeed journalists be prosecuted for publishing the dossier about golden shower, at least parts of which have been proven to be false? As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with publishing information in partisan manner. Has anything Wikileaks published been proven to be doctored or edited in any way? I am under the impression not even DNC is disputing authenticity of the emails.
- danso 8y ago
  How much of the dossier came from systems hacked by a foreign power?
  - colordrops 8y ago
    It doesn't matter legally or otherwise.
    - danso 8y ago
      I agree but the parent commenter implication that an outlet could be prosecuted for printing the Steele dossier is a non sequitur for many reasons here.

vallesmarineris 8y ago

I have seen no such aggressive, hateful and awful language from a progressive person. I think most people who identify as progressive would never use such violent words, as progressives are more likely to be compassionate and kind to others. I have only seen people like you use awful words like that - who are these progressives saying that? I think there are none. I think it's just you, making up lies about people on the left being violent and awful. Nobody is "cheering this on like a crowd of mobs about to burn a witch". That is awful. Why would you say such a thing? You are trolling and trying to create a hyper-political atmosphere on HN, where the only allowable opinions are hyper-conservative, and violent, hateful words are falsely attributed to progressives.

clatan 8y ago
No, he's absolutely right. And your idealization of 'progressives' is completely laughable.
collyw 8y ago
Check out Sargon of Akad's youtube channel, he does a good job of documenting and commenting on "progressives" especially when they are behaving hatefully or violently. (Any reason for the down votes? You may not like Sargon, but he he addresses exactly what the OP is talking about a lot of the time.)
subroutine 8y ago
You must not be active on twitter. It's probably true the left is on average more passive, but to claim it's unlikely any progressive would spew vitrol or be violent?? Ever heard of antifa?
richardknop 8y ago
Have you read the other thread about Julian Assange on HN today with hundreds of replies? It's full of people calling him a traitor and/or an evil Russian spy that should go to prison for life. Many sensible comments defending Assange as a journalist got down voted all the way to the bottom.
- 8y ago

creato 8y ago

No one here knows what he is even charged with. I highly doubt it's something we expect. Plenty of media outlets passed information along similarly to Wikileaks. Any charges limited to actions we know publicly are going to be a disaster on so many levels, and everyone involved knows it. It would be monumentally stupid to pursue charges based only on what we know publicly. The NYT story makes this clear. I suggest withholding judgement until we see the actual indictment. The other indictments that are (possibly) related that have been made public have provided a lot of detail and evidence.

bayesian_horse 8y ago
Totally agree. Though open source intelligence suggests that Assange did launder information he received from Russian intelligence services. He played a key role in the chain of them influencing the presidential election. To me this is not a case of clearly being a crime or clearly not being one. Room for further investigation and a trial.

intothemild 8y ago

Yeah whilst we don't know the indictments yet, I think it's safe to say that they might be related to the documents which he published from the Russian hacking. The rumors that he knew that he was talking with the GRU and that the documents were stolen by the Russian government is one thing.. But the idea he had foresight that the Russian government was trying to get Trump elected is something that might come out. Progressives, like myself who supported Wikileaks are curious at what Mueller has put together. If the worst is true, then Assange used Wikileaks as a tool to try to make sure Clinton did not become president. It's known that Clinton did not like Assange before the hacking leak, it's my guess that Assange published those documents in some effort to undermine her election chances. Part of me, think's that's OK. if it's OK for someone to come out with some crimes that someone might have committed and stand up and testify to that, then it's in the voting public's best interest to have all the facts.. Then again, there's the possibly non-zero chance he knew that this was coming from the GRU or at least the Russian government, which anyone in his org should have had experience in asking themselves the larger questions around this...

bsder 8y ago

Proof demanded. Any good Assange did blowing the whistle has been completely undermined by his collusion with Russia to help thwart democratic institutions and processes. I classify Snowden as a patriotic whistleblower. I classify Assange as a Russian agent. Treat both appropriately.

bayesian_horse 8y ago
The case on Snowden isn't that clear, either. I do believe he did something good for the world overall. I'm not entirely convinced he hasn't been working for the Russians at some time before or after the original leaking.