15 ms·

Abuses show Assange case was never about law

246 points by yasp 7y ago

module0000 7y ago
How could anyone possibly think this was ever about the law? When he first published "Collateral Murder", you knew what it was about, and you knew how it would (eventually) end for him. Does anyone not living under a rock, think what is happening to Assange is even remotely based on law and justice? spoiler alert: it's not!
- onlydeadheroes 7y ago
  A lot of people think this is justice simply because he spoiled her turn. A few feel strongly about state secrets and don't like that they were published. Everyone else knows this had nothing to do with the law.
- cc81 7y ago
  Do you think the rape charges were made from nothing?
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    Did you follow the Snowden case? In early interviews he talked about working for the CIA and in order to coerce a senior official, they got him drunk and then had the cops arrest him for DUI. Then told him if he didn't comply, the DUI charges would end his career. Can you put 2 and 2 together here?
  - YUMad 7y ago
    1) 'Rape' as in he didn't go and test himself for STDs when the woman he had sex with demanded it afterward. 2) Do you think no woman ever made up accusations about being raped? Every black man lynched for 'raping a white woman' really did rape them?
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > ’Rape' as in he didn't go and test himself for STDs when the woman he had sex with demanded it afterward This is false. The allegation is he got consent for sex with a condom. He then surreptitiously removed the condom.
      - YUMad 7y ago
        No, it is not false. The woman originally demanded he gets tested, only after he refused she claimed there wad no consent for unprotected sex.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      The activity he is accused of meets the Swedish and English definitions of rape. This has been tested in the English court. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
    - cc81 7y ago
      He was accused of two things. One was removing the condom during sex and that is not seen as rape but a lesser charge but the other one, having sex with a sleeping woman without a condom was rape. He is obviously not convicted yet so we don't know how it would hold up but in Sweden if someone is too drunk, sleeping or in a otherwise vulnerable position it is seen as rape. There is some more nuance to it but that is generally so. Of course women makes up shit but it seems pretty far fetched that CIA would plan a couple of fan girls to have sex with him and then claim that he removed the condom.
      - smolder 7y ago
        They have a history of doing far fetched things, don't they?
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > you knew how it would (eventually) end for him Deep Throat, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein did fine [1]. I’m not convinced that, had Wikileaks filtered their material like the ICIJ did with the Panama Papers [2], they would have been charged. Ignoring the collateral damage caused by Assange’s decision not to curate, like every journalist is trained to do, doesn’t make it immaterial. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_%28Watergate%29 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_%28Watergate%29 [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
  - Bartweiss 7y ago
    My first reaction to this is that the climate has changed since then. The use of the Espionage Act and nonjudicial targeting of reporters and leakers has been on the rise for a few decades; it's not just Assange but Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Joseph Wilson, and Barrett Brown. If James Bamford published the equivalent of Inside the Puzzle Palace today, I'd fully expect him to face prosecution. The softer reaction to the Panama Papers had less to do with protections for responsible publication than with the leaker never being caught, and the near-total absence of notable Americans. But honestly, saying earlier leakers did fine also seems pretty selective. Deep Throat did fine because he kept his identity secret for 30 years. Woodward did well because his publications forced Nixon to resign, producing an administration that wasn't being directly harmed by the leaks. Before Nixon's resignation, those associated with leaks suffered quite a bit more. Daniel Ellsberg had his medical records stolen from his psychiatrist's office. When Nixon thought the Brookings Institute had Vietnam files, he ordered their office robbed and later planned a firebombing to enable an FBI raid; this was apparently preempted only because the Pentagon Papers were published. Other reporters and editors were regularly targeted with tax audits for criticizing Nixon. Martha Mitchell was kidnapped and sedated to prevent her from discussing her husband's role in Watergate. Many of the people targeted most heavily, for instance for FBI harassment and break-ins, were activists instead of reporters, but Assange's place on that continuum is hardly clear. It does seem excessive to claim that this was an inevitable outcome. But I don't think the recent or Nixon-era experiences of leakers justify any belief whatsoever that responsible leakers face less retribution.
- onlydeadheroes 7y ago
  Damm did this thread get intervened fast! My other comment got 5 downvotes in one minute, and plenty more too! Top comment is a spin-filled bullshit, probably pinned. And these are my fellow humans for whom Assange sacrificed so much. Maybe we do deserve to be cattle for the deep state.
  - entropea 7y ago
    We keep heading right into darkness, and it is none but our own fault.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't break the site guidelines like this, regardless of how you feel about a divisive topic. Note that they include: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it looks like you've posted quite a few unsubstantive comments to HN in general, like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19991361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19991361. Please stop doing that. We're trying for something a bit better than internet default here. Edit: I suppose I should also mention that there are no pinned comments in this thread, and the current top comment is one you would probably agree with. Top comments come and go. As for "get intervened", I don't think any moderators saw it before you posted this.
    - onlydeadheroes 7y ago
      Thank you but I will comment as I see fit.
acdha 7y ago
He starts by asserting that things which are incompatible with his personal opinions are factual errors or some artifact of a corporate media conspiracy. He doesn’t say “wake up sheeple” but this is unlikely to result in a good discussion and he has no new information or analysis to contribute.
- BLKNSLVR 7y ago
  He's compiling a list of existing information that, as per his assertion, every media outlet seems to ignore which therefore serves to misinform the readership. The author isn't attempting to add anything new, he's merely trying to reincorporate the facts back into a narrative that has strayed from the appropriate journalistic path. The facts presented plainly is the contribution.
  - duxup 7y ago
    >every media outlet seems to ignore I feel like that phrase gets bounded about all the time when people don't see their own narrative parroted back to them. Same with the following part of the sentence.
  - acdha 7y ago
    Here's an exercise: try to find an actual fact in that blog post and then look to see whether it was in fact not covered in the stories about Assange. For example, “he wasn't fleeing rape charges” is true only to the extent that journalists said “charges” without explaining that it was an arrest warrant which could lead to those charges — that was heavily covered at the time and for the subsequent years in which it ended up, among other things, being litigated to the U.K. Supreme Court[1], all of which got a ton of publicity for years. Again, I'm not saying anything about the actual merits of the case or the conduct of any of the parties involved, only that I don't think a good discussion will come out of an inflamatory blog post by someone who lacks particular legal expertise, knowledge about the case, and seems to be using it as grist for preexisting grievances about “corporate media”. Accordingly, I'm not going to reply further. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> No state in the world gives a non-citizen political asylum to avoid a rape trial The granting of political asylum does not prove the crimes alleged are solely political. That this point is granted zero further attention weakens every subsequent claim. The granting of political asylum is itself a political act. Particularly when extended by an executive. When Assange’s asylum was granted, Assange was popular and well known. The Ecuadorean leader drew power from an anti-American base. Years later, most Americans don’t know who Assange is [1]. The leadership in Ecuador changed, and with it the political incentives that made Assange valuable [2]. I don’t think Assange fled the Swedish charges per se. But there is insufficient evidence to show he didn’t commit any bona fide crimes under U.S. law. Yes, he exposed war crimes. But he also published sensitive information of zero public benefit yet detrimental to those exposed, e.g. agents in terrorist organisations or the medical records of gay men in Saudi Arabia [3]. I am unfamiliar as to how those balance under American law. But to dismiss the latter solely because of the former is to say a good deed single-handedly excuses bad deeds, which isn’t justice. [1] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/04/11/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrested-poll-survey https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuadors-president-turns-on-his-anti-american-mentor-1517308200 https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuadors-president-turns-on-his... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-posts-sensitive-medical-information-saudi-arabia https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-post... [4] https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6024868-Assange-Superseding-Indictment https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6024868-Assa...
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  There is a lot of FUD spread about what WikiLeaks has published. I see the same accusations being repeated over and over, rarely with any explanation of the actual meat of the accusations. For example, you say that WikiLeaks has released a huge amount of material of zero public interest, and give the example of them supposedly outing a gay man in Saudi Arabia. WikiLeaks actually published a huge cache of Saudi diplomatic cables, which are obviously of immense public interest. Those cables detail the Saudi government's backroom dealings with foreign countries and internal repression. One cable mentions the arrest by the Saudi government of a gay man. That is the cable that people use to accuse WikiLeaks of outing someone in Saudi Arabia.
jMyles 7y ago
> When Assange’s popular recognition fell, and Ecuador’s political incentives changed, the asylum was rescinded. An important side note: this is the why the state always attacks the personality and popularity of activists, and why it's important to defend personalities and people. For example, let me say that, having met Cody Wilson several times and spending several hours with him on a couple of occasions (and moderating a panel on which he sat), I found him to be an absolute standup guy. He seems like a genuine patriot to me and a person of big heart and bravery.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pjc50 7y ago
  This guy? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/texas-indicts-cody-wilson-on-multiple-counts-of-sexual-assault-of-a-minor/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/texas-indicts-co... It's absolutely routine for basically anyone accused of sexual assault to find a whole bunch of men reporting that they seemed to be a standup guy. That doesn't mean they remain a standup guy when left alone around women.
  - satokema_work 7y ago
    Why can't they just be a standup guy that has issues dealing with women in specific circumstances? Why are they defined by that specific case and not their holistic behavior?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - anbop 7y ago
      Why can’t Josef Stalin just be a standup defender of the arts that has issues with killing people in specific circumstances?
mtgx 7y ago
The US gov got him where they wanted him, but let's hope Assange breaks this cycle of the U.S. gov arresting and accusing whistleblowers of espionage by not taking any plea deal or pleading guilty. He needs to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.
- 1121redblackgo 7y ago
  Calling him a whistleblower may have fit early on in his 'career', but by the end he was a huckster and an agent, knowing or unknowing, in state level espionage. I absolutely think the case should go to the Supreme Court, if only to clarify the culpability journalists and news agencies have when they publish illegally obtained information.
dmayle 7y ago
Background for anyone who doesn't know: Jonathan Cook is a writer for the alt-right conspiracy rag, The Unz Review: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-unz-report/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-unz-report/ This article is attempting to draw lines where there aren't. Julian Assange did in fact flee to the Ecuadorian embassy in order to escape rape charges. That he did so because he feared extradition to the US is correct, but that does not change the original facts.
- mrbanks 7y ago
  Rape charges invented by the US. The 'rape victim' admitted the Swedish Police told her what to say. Open your eyes Cinderella.
  - proaralyst 7y ago
    Do you have a reputable source for your assertion?
    - Tomte 7y ago
      No, because it's a lie. Actually one of the victims just recently (after the arrest) reiterated her accusations and called for re-opening the prosecution. Meta: This endless "do you have sources" plays right into the hands of liars. If you don't have real reason to believe that some crucial fact may be missing you shouldn't invite them to spew their nonsense. If they had something real, they would have posted it the first time. Asking them just lets them draw the "I'm just answering an honest question" card, thereby making it seem that now there are two posters discussing the issue. A well-known trick.
      - Taylor_OD 7y ago
        You're saying asking for sources is a bad thing?
        Tomte 7y ago
duxup 7y ago
This is a hard read as so much of it is "I don't like this opinion I hear, here are some vied insults about people who share that view". There doesn't seem to be any real critical thinking about Assange's actual actions here, or taking any accusations directed at him seriously. To some extent this blog post takes the law as seriously as it claims the government(s) take it.
duxup 7y ago
The whole "didn't flee rape charges" (or some form of that claim as the 'charges' thing hadn't happened at that time IIRC) situation is always odd to me. Sweeden considers espionage a political crime and does not extradite people for political crimes. Sweeden seems like a great place to be if you're wanted for political crimes. Not a great situation in life, but a good place to be for that. The usual theory in response to that is that the US was going to kidnap him from Sweeden or something (it seems to be the standard response I get). I find the idea that a kidnapping would be less likely in the UK or Ecuador fairly absurd. If the US (or any nation) really wanted him that bad, it seems like a first world country that doesn't extradite political crimes would be a RELATIVELY great place to be... and if things are as folks say about governments wanting to kidnap him, I think they could have done it long before the embassy events too. I think Assange at some point (maybe the start, who knows) really has struggled with the "truth" in favor of grooming his own narrative. This is hardly unique to him, politicians do it all the time too, but it also makes his stated motives and explanations hard to belive. On their old Facebook page (not sure if they still had one) in the early days if you followed up and asked "hey want happened to what you said you were going to release today" they'd delete your post in short order, and any post about their past plans to release whatever it is they had promised ... IMO their willingness to control the information for their own purposes seemed to betray whatever people wanted Wikileaks to be. Not that they should just dump it without consideration but their actions did not seem to follow the ideals. This article talks about "never about the law", and yet in the end he's charged with helping someone try to break into a computer. IMO that is a step beyond what a journalist should do. That's the law, it's a legitimate law IMO, and we'll see how the trial goes as for proving it and what if any punishment there is.
- YUMad 7y ago
  Might not extradite for political crimes, but they straight up let CIA kidnap people from their soil. If Assange was returned to Sweden, he'd be let out on 'house arrest' and he'd just dissapear into the dark one night.
  - paganel 7y ago
    As long as there will be Russian subs sailing under the nose of the Swedish authorities in Swedish teritorial waters then I’m pretty sure every Swedish government will play by the rules dictated by the US. A country like Switzerland can afford to act a little bit more neutral because they are located in the middle of Europe, with no close enemy in sight, but when you share the same sea with the Russians things are different. Come to think of it even the Swiss had to renounce part of their famous banking secrecy when the American IRS came asking for questions.
YUMad 7y ago
The guy ran and seeked asylum because he feared he will 'be made an example of' by USA. He sat in that tiny room for 6 years while US actors were working hard to smear him as a rapist and Russian puppet, while insinuating that everyone who claims USA is targeting Assange, or that there are indictments just waiting for his arrest is a conspiracy theorist. The moment he was removed from the embassy protection (again, as result of extreme pressure by USA onto Ecuador), the indictment for a death-sentence charge becomes public, and his personal belongings are illegally given by Ecuador to USA. In my opinion, Assange was proven right.
- NelsonMinar 7y ago
  The Russian puppet claims only started after Wikileaks started acting like a Russian puppet.
  - cheeseomlit 7y ago
    How's that? Leaking info about corruption in a political party doesn't make them Russian puppets just because you happen to be a member of that party.
    - nutjob2 7y ago
      Doing the Russians' bidding by enabling their interference in the US presidential election and openly stating his preference as to the result destroyed any possible credibility as a "journalist" and made him look very much like a Russian puppet. He dug his own grave.
      - cheeseomlit 7y ago
        >Doing the Russians' bidding by enabling their interference in the US presidential election How specifically did he do this? Publishing 'Collateral Murder' embarrassed a lot of people in Washington and probably affected elections afterwards, yet I never heard anyone make these accusations back then. And this hysteria about Russia over 40k worth of Facebook ads and some twitter bots is outrageous, Facebook/Twitters policy of censoring conservatives likely has a much more significant effect on elections than those ads and bots ever could. >openly stating his preference as to the result destroyed any possible credibility as a "journalist" and made him look very much like a Russian puppet. The entirety of the corporate media openly stated their preference during the election as well, to put it lightly.
arminiusreturns 7y ago
part of the snowden leaks was a document where the gov recognized JA as an increasing threat, and laid out plans to character assasinate him and other psyops things, and most of the bullshit being spewed about him is easily identifiable as feddback loops on that operation which continues today
wbhart 7y ago
According to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, who just visited Assange [1], he has fallen gravely ill and shows all the signs of prolonged psychological torture. Apparently at first he assumed Assange was just a good actor, but after visiting him it had become clear to him and the medical experts with him that this is a case of treatment amounting to psychological torture, the likes of which (psychological, not physical) he has not seen in 20 years. He's been giving numerous interviews about the matter and says that extradition to the US should be ruled out at all costs and that he has very real fears for Assange's health and for the probable violation of his human rights. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/julian-assange-showing-symptoms-psychological-torture-expert-says-n1012081 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/julian-assange-showing-sy...
- Tomte 7y ago
  > that this is a case of treatment amounting to psychological torture I don't deny his symptoms, but I strongly deny that "his treatment" by others led to those symptoms. His own decisions and actions, namely, to live in a cramped room for years, and not going to see a doctor, led to those. Now, you may argue that he was right to do so. But it was by his own volition. Sweden would have given him first-class medical treatment and much better living conditions, even if he would have been put in a prison cell (which isn't too likely).
  - wbhart 7y ago
    I agree with you. I believe he even offered to present himself to Sweden if he could be guaranteed that he would not be extradited to the US. A Swedish prison would be a country club in comparison. But I think the concern of the UN here is that the circumstances were prolonged due to the refusal of all states to abide by a more or less binding UN ruling.
    - Tomte 7y ago
      > more or less binding UN ruling Less. As in "not at all binding".
kombucha11 7y ago
The biggest issue here imo is he encouraged his sources to get more information for him in way that could be considered to have a alleviated him of the protections a journalist would normally receive. I used to be a fan of Assange but hes lost his way entirely. That being said the US government ought not to be prosecuting actual whistleblowers.
cryptica 7y ago
The system is rigged but our society lacks the idealism necessary to make a change. We have no shared values. The only thing we agree about is who has power... So whoever that is can decide what values should be upheld; unfortunately those people are usually greedy psychopaths whose entire value systems revolve around personal aggrandisement and enrichment. Our system empowers psychopaths because those people are attracted by power more than any other kind of person. I think the best solution is to abolish democracy and to replace it by a random number generator which elects government officials by random (kind of like jury duty). Randomn selection is the best way to prevent a system from being gamed.

246 points by yasp 7y ago

How could anyone possibly think this was ever about the law? When he first published "Collateral Murder", you knew what it was about, and you knew how it would (eventually) end for him. Does anyone not living under a rock, think what is happening to Assange is even remotely based on law and justice? spoiler alert: it's not!

onlydeadheroes 7y ago
A lot of people think this is justice simply because he spoiled her turn. A few feel strongly about state secrets and don't like that they were published. Everyone else knows this had nothing to do with the law.
cc81 7y ago
Do you think the rape charges were made from nothing?
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  Did you follow the Snowden case? In early interviews he talked about working for the CIA and in order to coerce a senior official, they got him drunk and then had the cops arrest him for DUI. Then told him if he didn't comply, the DUI charges would end his career. Can you put 2 and 2 together here?
- YUMad 7y ago
  1) 'Rape' as in he didn't go and test himself for STDs when the woman he had sex with demanded it afterward. 2) Do you think no woman ever made up accusations about being raped? Every black man lynched for 'raping a white woman' really did rape them?
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > ’Rape' as in he didn't go and test himself for STDs when the woman he had sex with demanded it afterward This is false. The allegation is he got consent for sex with a condom. He then surreptitiously removed the condom.
    - YUMad 7y ago
      No, it is not false. The woman originally demanded he gets tested, only after he refused she claimed there wad no consent for unprotected sex.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    The activity he is accused of meets the Swedish and English definitions of rape. This has been tested in the English court. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
  - cc81 7y ago
    He was accused of two things. One was removing the condom during sex and that is not seen as rape but a lesser charge but the other one, having sex with a sleeping woman without a condom was rape. He is obviously not convicted yet so we don't know how it would hold up but in Sweden if someone is too drunk, sleeping or in a otherwise vulnerable position it is seen as rape. There is some more nuance to it but that is generally so. Of course women makes up shit but it seems pretty far fetched that CIA would plan a couple of fan girls to have sex with him and then claim that he removed the condom.
    - smolder 7y ago
      They have a history of doing far fetched things, don't they?
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> you knew how it would (eventually) end for him Deep Throat, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein did fine [1]. I’m not convinced that, had Wikileaks filtered their material like the ICIJ did with the Panama Papers [2], they would have been charged. Ignoring the collateral damage caused by Assange’s decision not to curate, like every journalist is trained to do, doesn’t make it immaterial. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_%28Watergate%29 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_%28Watergate%29 [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
- Bartweiss 7y ago
  My first reaction to this is that the climate has changed since then. The use of the Espionage Act and nonjudicial targeting of reporters and leakers has been on the rise for a few decades; it's not just Assange but Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Joseph Wilson, and Barrett Brown. If James Bamford published the equivalent of Inside the Puzzle Palace today, I'd fully expect him to face prosecution. The softer reaction to the Panama Papers had less to do with protections for responsible publication than with the leaker never being caught, and the near-total absence of notable Americans. But honestly, saying earlier leakers did fine also seems pretty selective. Deep Throat did fine because he kept his identity secret for 30 years. Woodward did well because his publications forced Nixon to resign, producing an administration that wasn't being directly harmed by the leaks. Before Nixon's resignation, those associated with leaks suffered quite a bit more. Daniel Ellsberg had his medical records stolen from his psychiatrist's office. When Nixon thought the Brookings Institute had Vietnam files, he ordered their office robbed and later planned a firebombing to enable an FBI raid; this was apparently preempted only because the Pentagon Papers were published. Other reporters and editors were regularly targeted with tax audits for criticizing Nixon. Martha Mitchell was kidnapped and sedated to prevent her from discussing her husband's role in Watergate. Many of the people targeted most heavily, for instance for FBI harassment and break-ins, were activists instead of reporters, but Assange's place on that continuum is hardly clear. It does seem excessive to claim that this was an inevitable outcome. But I don't think the recent or Nixon-era experiences of leakers justify any belief whatsoever that responsible leakers face less retribution.
onlydeadheroes 7y ago
Damm did this thread get intervened fast! My other comment got 5 downvotes in one minute, and plenty more too! Top comment is a spin-filled bullshit, probably pinned. And these are my fellow humans for whom Assange sacrificed so much. Maybe we do deserve to be cattle for the deep state.
- entropea 7y ago
  We keep heading right into darkness, and it is none but our own fault.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't break the site guidelines like this, regardless of how you feel about a divisive topic. Note that they include: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it looks like you've posted quite a few unsubstantive comments to HN in general, like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19991361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19991361. Please stop doing that. We're trying for something a bit better than internet default here. Edit: I suppose I should also mention that there are no pinned comments in this thread, and the current top comment is one you would probably agree with. Top comments come and go. As for "get intervened", I don't think any moderators saw it before you posted this.
  - onlydeadheroes 7y ago
    Thank you but I will comment as I see fit.

acdha 7y ago

He starts by asserting that things which are incompatible with his personal opinions are factual errors or some artifact of a corporate media conspiracy. He doesn’t say “wake up sheeple” but this is unlikely to result in a good discussion and he has no new information or analysis to contribute.

BLKNSLVR 7y ago
He's compiling a list of existing information that, as per his assertion, every media outlet seems to ignore which therefore serves to misinform the readership. The author isn't attempting to add anything new, he's merely trying to reincorporate the facts back into a narrative that has strayed from the appropriate journalistic path. The facts presented plainly is the contribution.
- duxup 7y ago
  >every media outlet seems to ignore I feel like that phrase gets bounded about all the time when people don't see their own narrative parroted back to them. Same with the following part of the sentence.
- acdha 7y ago
  Here's an exercise: try to find an actual fact in that blog post and then look to see whether it was in fact not covered in the stories about Assange. For example, “he wasn't fleeing rape charges” is true only to the extent that journalists said “charges” without explaining that it was an arrest warrant which could lead to those charges — that was heavily covered at the time and for the subsequent years in which it ended up, among other things, being litigated to the U.K. Supreme Court[1], all of which got a ton of publicity for years. Again, I'm not saying anything about the actual merits of the case or the conduct of any of the parties involved, only that I don't think a good discussion will come out of an inflamatory blog post by someone who lacks particular legal expertise, knowledge about the case, and seems to be using it as grist for preexisting grievances about “corporate media”. Accordingly, I'm not going to reply further. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> No state in the world gives a non-citizen political asylum to avoid a rape trial The granting of political asylum does not prove the crimes alleged are solely political. That this point is granted zero further attention weakens every subsequent claim. The granting of political asylum is itself a political act. Particularly when extended by an executive. When Assange’s asylum was granted, Assange was popular and well known. The Ecuadorean leader drew power from an anti-American base. Years later, most Americans don’t know who Assange is [1]. The leadership in Ecuador changed, and with it the political incentives that made Assange valuable [2]. I don’t think Assange fled the Swedish charges per se. But there is insufficient evidence to show he didn’t commit any bona fide crimes under U.S. law. Yes, he exposed war crimes. But he also published sensitive information of zero public benefit yet detrimental to those exposed, e.g. agents in terrorist organisations or the medical records of gay men in Saudi Arabia [3]. I am unfamiliar as to how those balance under American law. But to dismiss the latter solely because of the former is to say a good deed single-handedly excuses bad deeds, which isn’t justice. [1] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/04/11/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrested-poll-survey https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuadors-president-turns-on-his-anti-american-mentor-1517308200 https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuadors-president-turns-on-his... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-posts-sensitive-medical-information-saudi-arabia https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-post... [4] https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6024868-Assange-Superseding-Indictment https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6024868-Assa...

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
There is a lot of FUD spread about what WikiLeaks has published. I see the same accusations being repeated over and over, rarely with any explanation of the actual meat of the accusations. For example, you say that WikiLeaks has released a huge amount of material of zero public interest, and give the example of them supposedly outing a gay man in Saudi Arabia. WikiLeaks actually published a huge cache of Saudi diplomatic cables, which are obviously of immense public interest. Those cables detail the Saudi government's backroom dealings with foreign countries and internal repression. One cable mentions the arrest by the Saudi government of a gay man. That is the cable that people use to accuse WikiLeaks of outing someone in Saudi Arabia.

jMyles 7y ago

> When Assange’s popular recognition fell, and Ecuador’s political incentives changed, the asylum was rescinded. An important side note: this is the why the state always attacks the personality and popularity of activists, and why it's important to defend personalities and people. For example, let me say that, having met Cody Wilson several times and spending several hours with him on a couple of occasions (and moderating a panel on which he sat), I found him to be an absolute standup guy. He seems like a genuine patriot to me and a person of big heart and bravery.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 7y ago
This guy? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/texas-indicts-cody-wilson-on-multiple-counts-of-sexual-assault-of-a-minor/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/texas-indicts-co... It's absolutely routine for basically anyone accused of sexual assault to find a whole bunch of men reporting that they seemed to be a standup guy. That doesn't mean they remain a standup guy when left alone around women.
- satokema_work 7y ago
  Why can't they just be a standup guy that has issues dealing with women in specific circumstances? Why are they defined by that specific case and not their holistic behavior?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - anbop 7y ago
    Why can’t Josef Stalin just be a standup defender of the arts that has issues with killing people in specific circumstances?

mtgx 7y ago

The US gov got him where they wanted him, but let's hope Assange breaks this cycle of the U.S. gov arresting and accusing whistleblowers of espionage by not taking any plea deal or pleading guilty. He needs to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.

1121redblackgo 7y ago
Calling him a whistleblower may have fit early on in his 'career', but by the end he was a huckster and an agent, knowing or unknowing, in state level espionage. I absolutely think the case should go to the Supreme Court, if only to clarify the culpability journalists and news agencies have when they publish illegally obtained information.

dmayle 7y ago

Background for anyone who doesn't know: Jonathan Cook is a writer for the alt-right conspiracy rag, The Unz Review: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-unz-report/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-unz-report/ This article is attempting to draw lines where there aren't. Julian Assange did in fact flee to the Ecuadorian embassy in order to escape rape charges. That he did so because he feared extradition to the US is correct, but that does not change the original facts.

mrbanks 7y ago
Rape charges invented by the US. The 'rape victim' admitted the Swedish Police told her what to say. Open your eyes Cinderella.
- proaralyst 7y ago
  Do you have a reputable source for your assertion?
  - Tomte 7y ago
    No, because it's a lie. Actually one of the victims just recently (after the arrest) reiterated her accusations and called for re-opening the prosecution. Meta: This endless "do you have sources" plays right into the hands of liars. If you don't have real reason to believe that some crucial fact may be missing you shouldn't invite them to spew their nonsense. If they had something real, they would have posted it the first time. Asking them just lets them draw the "I'm just answering an honest question" card, thereby making it seem that now there are two posters discussing the issue. A well-known trick.
    - Taylor_OD 7y ago
      You're saying asking for sources is a bad thing?
      - Tomte 7y ago

duxup 7y ago

This is a hard read as so much of it is "I don't like this opinion I hear, here are some vied insults about people who share that view". There doesn't seem to be any real critical thinking about Assange's actual actions here, or taking any accusations directed at him seriously. To some extent this blog post takes the law as seriously as it claims the government(s) take it.

duxup 7y ago

The whole "didn't flee rape charges" (or some form of that claim as the 'charges' thing hadn't happened at that time IIRC) situation is always odd to me. Sweeden considers espionage a political crime and does not extradite people for political crimes. Sweeden seems like a great place to be if you're wanted for political crimes. Not a great situation in life, but a good place to be for that. The usual theory in response to that is that the US was going to kidnap him from Sweeden or something (it seems to be the standard response I get). I find the idea that a kidnapping would be less likely in the UK or Ecuador fairly absurd. If the US (or any nation) really wanted him that bad, it seems like a first world country that doesn't extradite political crimes would be a RELATIVELY great place to be... and if things are as folks say about governments wanting to kidnap him, I think they could have done it long before the embassy events too. I think Assange at some point (maybe the start, who knows) really has struggled with the "truth" in favor of grooming his own narrative. This is hardly unique to him, politicians do it all the time too, but it also makes his stated motives and explanations hard to belive. On their old Facebook page (not sure if they still had one) in the early days if you followed up and asked "hey want happened to what you said you were going to release today" they'd delete your post in short order, and any post about their past plans to release whatever it is they had promised ... IMO their willingness to control the information for their own purposes seemed to betray whatever people wanted Wikileaks to be. Not that they should just dump it without consideration but their actions did not seem to follow the ideals. This article talks about "never about the law", and yet in the end he's charged with helping someone try to break into a computer. IMO that is a step beyond what a journalist should do. That's the law, it's a legitimate law IMO, and we'll see how the trial goes as for proving it and what if any punishment there is.

YUMad 7y ago
Might not extradite for political crimes, but they straight up let CIA kidnap people from their soil. If Assange was returned to Sweden, he'd be let out on 'house arrest' and he'd just dissapear into the dark one night.
- paganel 7y ago
  As long as there will be Russian subs sailing under the nose of the Swedish authorities in Swedish teritorial waters then I’m pretty sure every Swedish government will play by the rules dictated by the US. A country like Switzerland can afford to act a little bit more neutral because they are located in the middle of Europe, with no close enemy in sight, but when you share the same sea with the Russians things are different. Come to think of it even the Swiss had to renounce part of their famous banking secrecy when the American IRS came asking for questions.

YUMad 7y ago

The guy ran and seeked asylum because he feared he will 'be made an example of' by USA. He sat in that tiny room for 6 years while US actors were working hard to smear him as a rapist and Russian puppet, while insinuating that everyone who claims USA is targeting Assange, or that there are indictments just waiting for his arrest is a conspiracy theorist. The moment he was removed from the embassy protection (again, as result of extreme pressure by USA onto Ecuador), the indictment for a death-sentence charge becomes public, and his personal belongings are illegally given by Ecuador to USA. In my opinion, Assange was proven right.

NelsonMinar 7y ago
The Russian puppet claims only started after Wikileaks started acting like a Russian puppet.
- cheeseomlit 7y ago
  How's that? Leaking info about corruption in a political party doesn't make them Russian puppets just because you happen to be a member of that party.
  - nutjob2 7y ago
    Doing the Russians' bidding by enabling their interference in the US presidential election and openly stating his preference as to the result destroyed any possible credibility as a "journalist" and made him look very much like a Russian puppet. He dug his own grave.
    - cheeseomlit 7y ago
      >Doing the Russians' bidding by enabling their interference in the US presidential election How specifically did he do this? Publishing 'Collateral Murder' embarrassed a lot of people in Washington and probably affected elections afterwards, yet I never heard anyone make these accusations back then. And this hysteria about Russia over 40k worth of Facebook ads and some twitter bots is outrageous, Facebook/Twitters policy of censoring conservatives likely has a much more significant effect on elections than those ads and bots ever could. >openly stating his preference as to the result destroyed any possible credibility as a "journalist" and made him look very much like a Russian puppet. The entirety of the corporate media openly stated their preference during the election as well, to put it lightly.

arminiusreturns 7y ago

part of the snowden leaks was a document where the gov recognized JA as an increasing threat, and laid out plans to character assasinate him and other psyops things, and most of the bullshit being spewed about him is easily identifiable as feddback loops on that operation which continues today

wbhart 7y ago

According to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, who just visited Assange [1], he has fallen gravely ill and shows all the signs of prolonged psychological torture. Apparently at first he assumed Assange was just a good actor, but after visiting him it had become clear to him and the medical experts with him that this is a case of treatment amounting to psychological torture, the likes of which (psychological, not physical) he has not seen in 20 years. He's been giving numerous interviews about the matter and says that extradition to the US should be ruled out at all costs and that he has very real fears for Assange's health and for the probable violation of his human rights. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/julian-assange-showing-symptoms-psychological-torture-expert-says-n1012081 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/julian-assange-showing-sy...

Tomte 7y ago
> that this is a case of treatment amounting to psychological torture I don't deny his symptoms, but I strongly deny that "his treatment" by others led to those symptoms. His own decisions and actions, namely, to live in a cramped room for years, and not going to see a doctor, led to those. Now, you may argue that he was right to do so. But it was by his own volition. Sweden would have given him first-class medical treatment and much better living conditions, even if he would have been put in a prison cell (which isn't too likely).
- wbhart 7y ago
  I agree with you. I believe he even offered to present himself to Sweden if he could be guaranteed that he would not be extradited to the US. A Swedish prison would be a country club in comparison. But I think the concern of the UN here is that the circumstances were prolonged due to the refusal of all states to abide by a more or less binding UN ruling.
  - Tomte 7y ago
    > more or less binding UN ruling Less. As in "not at all binding".

kombucha11 7y ago

The biggest issue here imo is he encouraged his sources to get more information for him in way that could be considered to have a alleviated him of the protections a journalist would normally receive. I used to be a fan of Assange but hes lost his way entirely. That being said the US government ought not to be prosecuting actual whistleblowers.

cryptica 7y ago

The system is rigged but our society lacks the idealism necessary to make a change. We have no shared values. The only thing we agree about is who has power... So whoever that is can decide what values should be upheld; unfortunately those people are usually greedy psychopaths whose entire value systems revolve around personal aggrandisement and enrichment. Our system empowers psychopaths because those people are attracted by power more than any other kind of person. I think the best solution is to abolish democracy and to replace it by a random number generator which elects government officials by random (kind of like jury duty). Randomn selection is the best way to prevent a system from being gamed.