4 ms·

I can't really understand how someone could read the article and not be moved and chilled. Can someone who persecutes Assange please really just, here, anonymou

I can't really understand how someone could read the article and not be moved and chilled. Can someone who persecutes Assange please really just, here, anonymously if you must, please make a case for doing this. You think it's ok to do this... why? What is the end goal? No one can report governmental crimes? That's the world you want, for you and your family?

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
This is the world we live in now. If you're going to disclose government secrets of wrong doing, you're going to want to ensure your OpSec is tight, that the information can't be traced to you. At this stage, you'd have be a little bit mentally unhinged to want to go up against a state-level actor directly.
- rendall 7y ago
  I guess? Especially if the state-level actors are torturing people publicly and indiscriminately; and breaking laws and their own guidelines to do so. But doesn't that obligate us to support the mentally unhinged who manage to expose their crimes. But, again, it doesn't really explain what the motives are, here. Do the people who comprise these state-level actors really want a world where the crimes of their colleagues and bosses go completely unexposed. I can't see how that would lead to good things for themselves and their families.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    I've definitely seen at least some people more entertained by intrigue, drama, getting away with all sorts of crime, even sometimes getting caugh, and generally being tempted by "evil", than leading a virtuous life. Motives are surely many and varied. For some it's as simple as saving face and a job, others are way more driven to turned a blind eye, help, or mastermind the bad. Where does it begin? Well, some schools of developmental psychology claim that even the time spent in the womb predisposes us to certain adult-life outcomes.
- L_226 7y ago
  Is it mentally unhinged to accept an adverse fate rather than live in silence?
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    I would say the opposite is true, sanity and integrity can't prosper much without one another. Everybody dies, at some point, and to give up oneself to live in infinitely short amount longer (compared to eternity) is shitty a consolation price for those who don't really have themselves to begin with, who were compromised in childhood or youth, and live the rest of their lives slapping rationalizations on that. > Of course it is "more useful" to commit an injustice than to be victim of it; for the sake of the thinking dialogue with myself, this point of utility must be abandoned. -- Hannah Arendt, "Wahrheit und Politik" > Natürlich ist es "nützlicher", Unrecht zu tun als Unrecht zu leiden; um des denkenden Dialogs mit mir selbst willen muss gerade dieser Nützlichkeitsstandpunkt aufgegeben werden.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
93po 7y ago
The common anti-assange sentiment is that he did it on an illegal way (he didn't) and deserves jail time for that. Or that he's a Trump/Russian/Martian asset and isn't a journalist, just an operative to influence US elections and therefore shouldn't be provided the freedom of speech journalists get.
- rendall 7y ago
  Yes... I kind of think of it as maybe an extreme tribal reaction. "Bad man hurt us!" without more thought than that? A lot of these people don't seem to actually care whether what he did was legal or not, nor whether his treatment is legal or even proportionate. They just don't like him so... fair game for any kind of torture. But, is it that turtle all the way down? I mean, the cops who broke the law to "get their hands on him" - why? The diplomatic backroom dealing - why? The politicians who should know better - what do they gain?
  - harumph 7y ago
    > But, is it that turtle all the way down? I mean, the cops who broke the law to "get their hands on him" - why? The diplomatic backroom dealing - why? The politicians who should know better - what do they gain? This is business-as-usual behavior. No one asks why when it has become _habit_.
openasocket 7y ago
I don't support the behavior alleged in this article, but I do genuinely believe Wikileaks was acting very unethically. It's one thing to release classified documents describing corruption or illegal/immoral behavior by the government, it's another to blindly release any classified documents you can get your hands on without any concern for others. In one dump of classified documents on the War in Afghanistan, it included the identities of many civilians assisting the US military. Those named have since been targeted by the Taliban. And this is a consistent pattern. Their leaks routinely include social security numbers, credit card numbers, private medical information, the list goes on. That information is not in the public interest and has caused great harm to innocent people. And I'm hardly alone in saying this. Edward Snowden, the Sunlight Foundation, and Amnesty International have criticized this practice. EDIT: Quoting from Assange's indictment: "After agreeing to receive classified documents from Manning and aiding, abetting, and causing Manning to provide classified documents, the superseding indictment charges that Assange then published on WikiLeaks classified documents that contained the unredacted names of human sources who provided information to United States forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to U.S. State Department diplomats around the world. These human sources included local Afghans and Iraqis, journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates, and political dissidents from repressive regimes. According to the superseding indictment, Assange’s actions risked serious harm to United States national security to the benefit of our adversaries and put the unredacted named human sources at a grave and imminent risk of serious physical harm and/or arbitrary detention."
- simion314 7y ago
  >I don't support the behavior alleged in this article, but I do genuinely believe Wikileaks was acting very unethically. The issue is that laws not ethics matter now. So IMO the rape accusations have nothing to do with the ethics of his job. What is the difference between Russia where journalists are killed and "the west" where journalists are tortured and pushed into suicide.
- xkcd-sucks 7y ago
  On the other hand, a perfectly anonymized dump is impossible to distinguish from fiction, because there's nothing verifiable to connect it to. In a sense, every person/organization that says they're endangered by the leak confirms its validity and exposes them as a source for further investigation/leaks. And everyone agrees a bit of "collateral damage" is ethically defensible in service of the greater good.
plandis 7y ago
(I’m not a prosecutor) From the US perspective Assange is being charged with crimes that he willfully assisted and encouraged Manning by providing her with guidance on how to cover her tracks, etc. — basically charges related to abetting of a criminal act. Publishing that information is then not an act of journalist but that of a criminal who illegally aided in the gathering that information and then recklessly and illegal published the names of classified personnel. So basically the charges seem to be pretty much predicated on the idea that Assange was a participant in the illegal obtaining of this information. From the indictment statement [1]: > The superseding indictment alleges that beginning in late 2009, Assange and WikiLeaks actively solicited United States classified information, including by publishing a list of “Most Wanted Leaks” that sought, among other things, classified documents. Manning responded to Assange’s solicitations by using access granted to her as an intelligence analyst to search for United States classified documents, and provided to Assange and WikiLeaks databases containing approximately 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 U.S. Department of State cables. > The superseding indictment alleges that Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange. The discussions also reflect that Assange actively encouraged Manning to provide more information and agreed to crack a password hash stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a United States government network used for classified documents and communications. Assange is also charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to crack that password hash. Additionally, the claim that he would not get a for trial in the US is utterly farcical. The claim that you would wind up with a rigged jury is provided without any evidence whatsoever. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-charged-18-count-superseding-indictment https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assa...
- chishaku 7y ago
  > utterly farcical. He's being tortured but at least he'll get a fair trial.
  - kmlx 7y ago
rasz 7y ago
"You cant handle the truth" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk
barney54 7y ago
From what I read I’m not chilled because I don’t trust the special rapporteur on basic facts. For example, he says, “ He will not receive a trial consistent with the rule of law. That’s another reason why his extradition shouldn’t be allowed. Assange will receive a trial-by-jury in Alexandria, Virginia – the notorious «Espionage Court» where the U.S. tries all national security cases. The choice of location is not by coincidence, because the jury members must be chosen in proportion to the local population, and 85 percent of Alexandria residents work in the national security community – at the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Department and the State Department.” Do some people who live in Alexandria, Virginia work for the national security community? Clearly, but 85% is tin foil hat territory. I’d like to understand more about the Assange situation, because this guy is not trustworthy.
- rendall 7y ago
  This is a great point. I'm not sure why that slipped by me. That really is misstatement of fact, whether mistaken or intentional, and does cast some shade on every other assertion he makes.

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago

This is the world we live in now. If you're going to disclose government secrets of wrong doing, you're going to want to ensure your OpSec is tight, that the information can't be traced to you. At this stage, you'd have be a little bit mentally unhinged to want to go up against a state-level actor directly.

rendall 7y ago
I guess? Especially if the state-level actors are torturing people publicly and indiscriminately; and breaking laws and their own guidelines to do so. But doesn't that obligate us to support the mentally unhinged who manage to expose their crimes. But, again, it doesn't really explain what the motives are, here. Do the people who comprise these state-level actors really want a world where the crimes of their colleagues and bosses go completely unexposed. I can't see how that would lead to good things for themselves and their families.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  I've definitely seen at least some people more entertained by intrigue, drama, getting away with all sorts of crime, even sometimes getting caugh, and generally being tempted by "evil", than leading a virtuous life. Motives are surely many and varied. For some it's as simple as saving face and a job, others are way more driven to turned a blind eye, help, or mastermind the bad. Where does it begin? Well, some schools of developmental psychology claim that even the time spent in the womb predisposes us to certain adult-life outcomes.
L_226 7y ago
Is it mentally unhinged to accept an adverse fate rather than live in silence?
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  I would say the opposite is true, sanity and integrity can't prosper much without one another. Everybody dies, at some point, and to give up oneself to live in infinitely short amount longer (compared to eternity) is shitty a consolation price for those who don't really have themselves to begin with, who were compromised in childhood or youth, and live the rest of their lives slapping rationalizations on that. > Of course it is "more useful" to commit an injustice than to be victim of it; for the sake of the thinking dialogue with myself, this point of utility must be abandoned. -- Hannah Arendt, "Wahrheit und Politik" > Natürlich ist es "nützlicher", Unrecht zu tun als Unrecht zu leiden; um des denkenden Dialogs mit mir selbst willen muss gerade dieser Nützlichkeitsstandpunkt aufgegeben werden.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

93po 7y ago

The common anti-assange sentiment is that he did it on an illegal way (he didn't) and deserves jail time for that. Or that he's a Trump/Russian/Martian asset and isn't a journalist, just an operative to influence US elections and therefore shouldn't be provided the freedom of speech journalists get.

rendall 7y ago
Yes... I kind of think of it as maybe an extreme tribal reaction. "Bad man hurt us!" without more thought than that? A lot of these people don't seem to actually care whether what he did was legal or not, nor whether his treatment is legal or even proportionate. They just don't like him so... fair game for any kind of torture. But, is it that turtle all the way down? I mean, the cops who broke the law to "get their hands on him" - why? The diplomatic backroom dealing - why? The politicians who should know better - what do they gain?
- harumph 7y ago
  > But, is it that turtle all the way down? I mean, the cops who broke the law to "get their hands on him" - why? The diplomatic backroom dealing - why? The politicians who should know better - what do they gain? This is business-as-usual behavior. No one asks why when it has become _habit_.

openasocket 7y ago

I don't support the behavior alleged in this article, but I do genuinely believe Wikileaks was acting very unethically. It's one thing to release classified documents describing corruption or illegal/immoral behavior by the government, it's another to blindly release any classified documents you can get your hands on without any concern for others. In one dump of classified documents on the War in Afghanistan, it included the identities of many civilians assisting the US military. Those named have since been targeted by the Taliban. And this is a consistent pattern. Their leaks routinely include social security numbers, credit card numbers, private medical information, the list goes on. That information is not in the public interest and has caused great harm to innocent people. And I'm hardly alone in saying this. Edward Snowden, the Sunlight Foundation, and Amnesty International have criticized this practice. EDIT: Quoting from Assange's indictment: "After agreeing to receive classified documents from Manning and aiding, abetting, and causing Manning to provide classified documents, the superseding indictment charges that Assange then published on WikiLeaks classified documents that contained the unredacted names of human sources who provided information to United States forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to U.S. State Department diplomats around the world. These human sources included local Afghans and Iraqis, journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates, and political dissidents from repressive regimes. According to the superseding indictment, Assange’s actions risked serious harm to United States national security to the benefit of our adversaries and put the unredacted named human sources at a grave and imminent risk of serious physical harm and/or arbitrary detention."

simion314 7y ago
>I don't support the behavior alleged in this article, but I do genuinely believe Wikileaks was acting very unethically. The issue is that laws not ethics matter now. So IMO the rape accusations have nothing to do with the ethics of his job. What is the difference between Russia where journalists are killed and "the west" where journalists are tortured and pushed into suicide.
xkcd-sucks 7y ago
On the other hand, a perfectly anonymized dump is impossible to distinguish from fiction, because there's nothing verifiable to connect it to. In a sense, every person/organization that says they're endangered by the leak confirms its validity and exposes them as a source for further investigation/leaks. And everyone agrees a bit of "collateral damage" is ethically defensible in service of the greater good.

plandis 7y ago

(I’m not a prosecutor) From the US perspective Assange is being charged with crimes that he willfully assisted and encouraged Manning by providing her with guidance on how to cover her tracks, etc. — basically charges related to abetting of a criminal act. Publishing that information is then not an act of journalist but that of a criminal who illegally aided in the gathering that information and then recklessly and illegal published the names of classified personnel. So basically the charges seem to be pretty much predicated on the idea that Assange was a participant in the illegal obtaining of this information. From the indictment statement [1]: > The superseding indictment alleges that beginning in late 2009, Assange and WikiLeaks actively solicited United States classified information, including by publishing a list of “Most Wanted Leaks” that sought, among other things, classified documents. Manning responded to Assange’s solicitations by using access granted to her as an intelligence analyst to search for United States classified documents, and provided to Assange and WikiLeaks databases containing approximately 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 U.S. Department of State cables. > The superseding indictment alleges that Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange. The discussions also reflect that Assange actively encouraged Manning to provide more information and agreed to crack a password hash stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a United States government network used for classified documents and communications. Assange is also charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to crack that password hash. Additionally, the claim that he would not get a for trial in the US is utterly farcical. The claim that you would wind up with a rigged jury is provided without any evidence whatsoever. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-charged-18-count-superseding-indictment https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assa...

chishaku 7y ago
> utterly farcical. He's being tortured but at least he'll get a fair trial.
- kmlx 7y ago

rasz 7y ago

"You cant handle the truth" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

barney54 7y ago

From what I read I’m not chilled because I don’t trust the special rapporteur on basic facts. For example, he says, “ He will not receive a trial consistent with the rule of law. That’s another reason why his extradition shouldn’t be allowed. Assange will receive a trial-by-jury in Alexandria, Virginia – the notorious «Espionage Court» where the U.S. tries all national security cases. The choice of location is not by coincidence, because the jury members must be chosen in proportion to the local population, and 85 percent of Alexandria residents work in the national security community – at the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Department and the State Department.” Do some people who live in Alexandria, Virginia work for the national security community? Clearly, but 85% is tin foil hat territory. I’d like to understand more about the Assange situation, because this guy is not trustworthy.

rendall 7y ago
This is a great point. I'm not sure why that slipped by me. That really is misstatement of fact, whether mistaken or intentional, and does cast some shade on every other assertion he makes.