6 ms·

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

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.

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.