4 ms·

Regardless of where you stand on this matter, I think there are quite a few questions we should all be seeking to answer. All the varying opinions and nuance ha

by z3c0 7y ago

Regardless of where you stand on this matter, I think there are quite a few questions we should all be seeking to answer. All the varying opinions and nuance have only served to leave me feeling confused about the whole matter, and I'm sure I'm not alone. For one, were the actions Assange took to secure the "Collateral Murder" leaks illegal? If so, where is the line that distinguishes his methods from those regularly employed by investigative journalists? And how can he be charged in a way that doesn't threaten the future of investigative journalism and whistleblowing? The DNC/Podesta leaks have turned Assange into an even more polarizing figure, and it seems that a lot of negative attitudes towards him originate there. Were these leaks more, less, or equally effective as all the Russian disinformation campaigns occurring on social media? If you're one of the people harboring an ill view of Assange for his role here, what is it that upsets you about it? Is it that he released information about Clinton? Or that he didn't release information on Trump? Was it that he released information at all? As far as I know, there was no disinformation in the DNC/Podesta leaks (unlike the Fancy Bear leaks.) So it's fair to say that voters who changed their stance after the leaks did so from a more knowledgeable place. I'm sure noone here is upset at the idea of more informed voters - however, do you believe there is a better way to inform voters of matters like these? What route do you think should have been taken to publish this information? And with all that said, how much bearing should the DNC leaks have on the ruling of the charges being brought forth for Collateral Murder? Are these matters relevant to one another? These are all genuine questions - I don't presume any answers. I'd certainly like to learn more from you all, but if past threads are anything to go off of, I'm expecting at least a few inflammatory responses.

thatoneuser 7y ago
No intention to flame, I genuinely find this case fascinating. So Devils advocate - the dnc was polarized before assange leaked anything. It was straight up controlled by Hillarys camp. If Hillary were some grassroots candidate or hell, if the dnc had just not deliberately sided with one specific candidate when their bylaws are crystal clear that that is wrong (not to mention common sense agreeing) - then yeah I'd say assange was playing presidential chess (though we don't know his actual impact) and that's bad. But that said - the dnc was corrupt as hell. I see assange having a metric fuck ton of moral wiggle room here. Personally it didn't matter what candidate did what Hillary got away with in that election - whoever it was deserved to be exposed and too bad if other incriminating shit came out too. My two cents. Further, what I've seen is that ppl who dislike assange seem to base it on "well he did something illegal" (giving Manning instructions for hacking). Well, Manning then chose to hack and was pardoned after way less than assange has been through, so how can assange possibly be so bad? I'm still awaiting more details. I have no problems changing my views. But as everything stands now, I cannot help but think this whole anti assange business is fueled by the exact same propaganda machines that were running on behalf of Hillary in 2016. The ones that mysteriously shut off or slowed down the moment she lost. The ones that insisted that she didn't receive debate questions ahead of time. The ones that convinced so many that there was no server hacking. The ones that made trump look like an incompetent loser with no chance of winning.
- spiralx 7y ago
  The DNC supported the candidate that won the primary, that's true. I've yet to hear what actual wrong=doing was exposed by the leaked emails though, what bylaws are you referring to? > Well, Manning then chose to hack and was pardoned after way less than assange has been through, so how can assange possibly be so bad? Maybe if Assange hadn't have been in hiding for the last seven years he would already have been through the same process of trial, conviction, prison and pardon that Manning has. He made the choice to do what he did, so you can't really compare the outcome of his situation with Manning's at all; I agree that his crime seems less serious than Manning's was, maybe it would all be over now had he not entered the embassy? It's entirely possible he would never have been charged with any crimes at all.

by z3c0 7y ago

thatoneuser 7y ago

No intention to flame, I genuinely find this case fascinating. So Devils advocate - the dnc was polarized before assange leaked anything. It was straight up controlled by Hillarys camp. If Hillary were some grassroots candidate or hell, if the dnc had just not deliberately sided with one specific candidate when their bylaws are crystal clear that that is wrong (not to mention common sense agreeing) - then yeah I'd say assange was playing presidential chess (though we don't know his actual impact) and that's bad. But that said - the dnc was corrupt as hell. I see assange having a metric fuck ton of moral wiggle room here. Personally it didn't matter what candidate did what Hillary got away with in that election - whoever it was deserved to be exposed and too bad if other incriminating shit came out too. My two cents. Further, what I've seen is that ppl who dislike assange seem to base it on "well he did something illegal" (giving Manning instructions for hacking). Well, Manning then chose to hack and was pardoned after way less than assange has been through, so how can assange possibly be so bad? I'm still awaiting more details. I have no problems changing my views. But as everything stands now, I cannot help but think this whole anti assange business is fueled by the exact same propaganda machines that were running on behalf of Hillary in 2016. The ones that mysteriously shut off or slowed down the moment she lost. The ones that insisted that she didn't receive debate questions ahead of time. The ones that convinced so many that there was no server hacking. The ones that made trump look like an incompetent loser with no chance of winning.

spiralx 7y ago
The DNC supported the candidate that won the primary, that's true. I've yet to hear what actual wrong=doing was exposed by the leaked emails though, what bylaws are you referring to? > Well, Manning then chose to hack and was pardoned after way less than assange has been through, so how can assange possibly be so bad? Maybe if Assange hadn't have been in hiding for the last seven years he would already have been through the same process of trial, conviction, prison and pardon that Manning has. He made the choice to do what he did, so you can't really compare the outcome of his situation with Manning's at all; I agree that his crime seems less serious than Manning's was, maybe it would all be over now had he not entered the embassy? It's entirely possible he would never have been charged with any crimes at all.