4 ms·

I agree. Early on, I thought Assange was a bit of a hero. He provided a forum for people to reveal things that shouldn't be happening and shouldn't be secret. I

I agree. Early on, I thought Assange was a bit of a hero. He provided a forum for people to reveal things that shouldn't be happening and shouldn't be secret. I understand the need for government secrecy, spying, and surveillance. I don't accept that it's ok for governments to break their own laws to spy on their own citizens without warrants or just cause, however. Assange wasn't simply doing this as a neutral party, however. He was playing the same underhanded games as the governments. He was actively timing the release of information and selectively revealing or withholding information to suit his own political agenda. I'd grown disenchanted with him well before the 2016 election, but that revealed his hypocritical motivations in all their glory. He worked with the despotic Russian regime and went on a personal attack against Hillary Clinton, timing the release (and non-release) of information to intentionally disrupt the presidential election. Assange long ago became just another of the underhanded villains he claimed to be fighting against.

Elof 8y ago
I felt similarly early on. To the authors point, he's always said some very off the wall things and is very extreme in many of his beliefs. I wonder if he was planning on using any power/influence he got for his own agenda the whole time, or if the power got to him. He doesn't look or seem very mentally healthy, maybe there's something there too
kpU8efre7r 8y ago
Exactly my opinion as well. Some information should be kept secret but it's also good to give people a transparent and unbiased outlet to leak if they have no other options. As soon as he and WikiLeaks showed they had an agenda their integrity went out the window. Hot take: The organization has always had an agenda. All the big leaks were things that painted the U.S. in a negative light. Just the title of Collateral Murder reads like a Fox News tagline for maximum effect.
tinus_hn 8y ago
Hypocrisy is not a crime and people should not end up in jail for it. There is a reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold.
- Elof 8y ago
  Looks to me, based on public facts, that there is a reasonable case against him being more than a hypocrite. Getting charged doesn't mean he will be convicted... which is why Lady Justice wears a blindfold.
- hnbroseph 8y ago
  > Hypocrisy is not a crime and people should not end up in jail for it. this seems like both a trivially true statement and also a strawman.
- caymanjim 8y ago
  He hasn't been charged with publishing classified information. Journalists do that all the time and aren't charged. What he's charged with in the US (so far) is actively taking part in the extraction of classified information. Specifically, he didn't just accept and release what Manning supplied; he encouraged and quite possibly materially aided in the act. He'll get a trial for that, and can state his case. I'm not saying the US doesn't have it in for him. I'm not even saying that I trust the US to present a fair case. I'm saying that what he's charged with here matters, and is far different than the persecution of a neutral party that he and others are trying to paint it as. It's more evidence that he may never have been the white knight that he claimed to be and has possibly always had an agenda.
roenxi 8y ago
> I understand the need for government secrecy, spying, and surveillance There is a place for all these things; but there is distinction between things we know the government has that are not disclosed (eg, the US government has a plan to invade Canada if a crisis warrants it. They might reasonably keep the actual content of the plan secret) vs. secret schemes (it is unknowable what precedent the FISA court has created). There is a big difference between the two. The first case can be reasonably handled by the democratic process. The second case cannot, and is incompatible with an accountable democracy. People who work against these anti-democratic secrets deserve support even if they are hypocrites; all I ask is that they are effective. > He worked with the despotic Russian regime... I find it conspicuous that there is nobody claiming the information in the leaks was false. If the revealing honest thoughts and intentions to the voting public is the scandal (and not the thoughts and intentions themselves) then I don't see why it would influence an election. If an untimely revelation of facts scuppers the cause, then the cause is not robust and that is the big problem.
- toomanyrichies 8y ago
  > I find it conspicuous that there is nobody claiming the information in the leaks was false. If he was at all selective about the information he revealed, that's equivalent to editorializing. A person who reveals a subset of the facts in their possession for the purposes of influencing a political narrative is not a person to be trusted.

Elof 8y ago

I felt similarly early on. To the authors point, he's always said some very off the wall things and is very extreme in many of his beliefs. I wonder if he was planning on using any power/influence he got for his own agenda the whole time, or if the power got to him. He doesn't look or seem very mentally healthy, maybe there's something there too

kpU8efre7r 8y ago

Exactly my opinion as well. Some information should be kept secret but it's also good to give people a transparent and unbiased outlet to leak if they have no other options. As soon as he and WikiLeaks showed they had an agenda their integrity went out the window. Hot take: The organization has always had an agenda. All the big leaks were things that painted the U.S. in a negative light. Just the title of Collateral Murder reads like a Fox News tagline for maximum effect.

tinus_hn 8y ago

Hypocrisy is not a crime and people should not end up in jail for it. There is a reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold.

Elof 8y ago
Looks to me, based on public facts, that there is a reasonable case against him being more than a hypocrite. Getting charged doesn't mean he will be convicted... which is why Lady Justice wears a blindfold.
hnbroseph 8y ago
> Hypocrisy is not a crime and people should not end up in jail for it. this seems like both a trivially true statement and also a strawman.
caymanjim 8y ago
He hasn't been charged with publishing classified information. Journalists do that all the time and aren't charged. What he's charged with in the US (so far) is actively taking part in the extraction of classified information. Specifically, he didn't just accept and release what Manning supplied; he encouraged and quite possibly materially aided in the act. He'll get a trial for that, and can state his case. I'm not saying the US doesn't have it in for him. I'm not even saying that I trust the US to present a fair case. I'm saying that what he's charged with here matters, and is far different than the persecution of a neutral party that he and others are trying to paint it as. It's more evidence that he may never have been the white knight that he claimed to be and has possibly always had an agenda.

roenxi 8y ago

> I understand the need for government secrecy, spying, and surveillance There is a place for all these things; but there is distinction between things we know the government has that are not disclosed (eg, the US government has a plan to invade Canada if a crisis warrants it. They might reasonably keep the actual content of the plan secret) vs. secret schemes (it is unknowable what precedent the FISA court has created). There is a big difference between the two. The first case can be reasonably handled by the democratic process. The second case cannot, and is incompatible with an accountable democracy. People who work against these anti-democratic secrets deserve support even if they are hypocrites; all I ask is that they are effective. > He worked with the despotic Russian regime... I find it conspicuous that there is nobody claiming the information in the leaks was false. If the revealing honest thoughts and intentions to the voting public is the scandal (and not the thoughts and intentions themselves) then I don't see why it would influence an election. If an untimely revelation of facts scuppers the cause, then the cause is not robust and that is the big problem.

toomanyrichies 8y ago
> I find it conspicuous that there is nobody claiming the information in the leaks was false. If he was at all selective about the information he revealed, that's equivalent to editorializing. A person who reveals a subset of the facts in their possession for the purposes of influencing a political narrative is not a person to be trusted.