24 ms·

Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

say_it_as_it_is 6y ago
I do not see president Biden pardoning Assange
- jessaustin 6y ago
  That's why I voted for Tulsi.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Tulsi is on the BJP/VHP payroll and if you think Trump has a thing for Muslim bans/camps and cozying up to dictators, you ain't seen nothing yet.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Nobody's perfect. Tulsi was the only presidential candidate to credibly (because we remember the false promises of W, O, and T) speak about reigning in our omnicidal war mania. If you're referring to her "cozying up" to Assad... a) he's also Muslim, b) [EDIT:] why tell lies? When Tulsi joined the diplomatic mission to Syria, it was entirely appropriate given her service on the House Armed Services Committee. She never said anything to support him. She just said she wasn't afraid to talk with him. Furthermore, the international inspectors who actually inspected the supposed gas attacks [0] determined they were obvious false flags. Then the OPCW home office threw out their analyses and just had bellincat write some bullshit. Of course it's easy to pretend one doesn't know about this because NYT etc. will never retract their cheerleading for war. [0] https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/22/ian-henderson-opcw-whistleblower-un-no-chemical-attack-douma-syria/ https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/22/ian-henderson-opcw-whistl...
- 34679 6y ago
  I guess I'll just have to keep voting for Libertarians. https://joj2020.com/ https://joj2020.com/
mhoad 6y ago
I think this really kills the idea that Assange was ever a real journalist. Directing cyber attacks and theft of information is not journalism.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Being a journalist is not an endorsement of character. You can be a criminal and a journalist, a thief and a journalist, a horrible person and a journalist.
  - strictnein 6y ago
    But how you obtain your information definitely does change whether or not you should be called a "journalist". If your information is obtained through blackmail, for instance, you are not a journalist you are an extortionist.
    - banads 6y ago
      >journalist: a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast.
    - drak0n1c 6y ago
      Even mainstream Vox [1], NBC [2], and NYT [3] reporters have recently contacted corporations and individuals threatening to name and shame them if they do not issue an apology, assist with a story, or add their weight to a deplatforming/demonetization campaign. Do those acts of extortion render those individuals and their supporting editors not-journalists too? I don’t think so. Ethical lapses, deplorable though they may be, are perfectly compatible with still fulfilling the role of a profession. [1] YouTube adpocalypse effort led by Carlos Maza [2] NBC’s repetitive naming of Google Ads and brands alongside cherry picked comments on Zero Hedge and The Federalist to delist those competitors. [3] NYT recent threat to doxx the Scott Alexander blog
  - hackinthebochs 6y ago
    But then you can't use being a journalist as a shield for illegal behavior.
Temasik 6y ago
so craig wright was right?
mcv 6y ago
> "Since the early days of WikiLeaks, Assange has spoken at hacking conferences to tout his own history as a “famous teenage hacker in Australia” and to encourage others to hack to obtain information for WikiLeaks. In 2009, for instance, Assange told the Hacking At Random conference that WikiLeaks had obtained nonpublic documents from the Congressional Research Service by exploiting “a small vulnerability” inside the document distribution system of the United States Congress, and then asserted that “[t]his is what any one of you would find if you were actually looking.”" I don't remember that detail at all, but I did see him at HAR 2009, at a panel discussion about censorship and how to fight it. Afterward we set up a mailinglist for sharing information about censorship-related issues, especially laws and protests against them. It was never terribly active, unfortunately.
- DJBunnies 6y ago
  I remember him very carefully offering a distinction of what hacking meant in terms of him. He describes the old school term, meaning hacking programs together to make something, not the one meaning to break into/steal.
  - ObsoleteNerd 6y ago
    In the earlier days he very clearly stated he was a hacker “in the Australian scene” and name dropped various IRC channels etc. I have no idea if it was true or not, but I recognised some of the channels mentioned hence it stuck with me.
LockAndLol 6y ago
The judgement was made long before Assange even set foot in the US. This is just a show to try and deter other people from exposing their dirty secrets. If they could get Snowden, he'd be treated in the same manner for exposing their misdeeds. It's a rigged game.
- jasonvorhe 6y ago
  Do you have proof of that?
  - YPCrumble 6y ago
    Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the government at this point that they wouldn’t do everything in their power to spy on citizens and punish people for trying to stop them?
    - cptskippy 6y ago
      The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused.
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        Assange is the one in jail. If "proof" had any chance of putting e.g. Pompeo in jail, we'd be happy to provide it.
        cptskippy 6y ago
        I'm not defending anyone. In my opinion everyone involved in this stinks. Everyone on both sides has been doing shady and questionable things.
- GVIrish 6y ago
  What judgement? This is an indictment. If the government can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and he is convicted, then that would be a judgment. These are simply charges that Assange would face if he is ever extradited to the US.
moomin 6y ago
Hang on, did they just accuse Chelsea Manning of attempting to hack computer systems? Is that a new allegation? To the best of my knowledge she only ever used access she already had, not attempted privilege escalation. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
  That was my understanding, as well. I was under the impression that Manning already had pretty carte blanche access to a lot of stuff, and that was how she was able to get it in the first place. Maybe one of the items she provided to Assange was encrypted, and he worked to break the encryption, without consulting Manning.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - nickysielicki 6y ago
    It's so much worse than this. Via instant messenger, Manning asked Assange whether Wikileaks could crack NTLM hashes. Assange said (paraphrasing), "Yeah, we can probably do that." Manning sent the hashes. Assange said he'd work on cracking them. A few days later, Manning asked if the hashes had been cracked. Assange replied that there hadn't been any progress. End of story. That's a federal crime. No hashes were cracked, let alone sent back to Manning. No additional access was gained. He simply agreed to accept the hashes from Manning, which were freely offered. Maybe he agreed because he didn't want to spook his source. Maybe he never even started hashcat. We'll never know. edit: source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html (middle of page 6)
    - ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
      Ah. Yes. That makes sense. People like Manning and Snowden expose nastiness, but, at the same time, we absolutely need to ensure military and espionage secrets (Full disclosure: my father was in the CIA, but quit on moral grounds - http://cmarshall.com/miscellaneous/MikeMarshall.htm http://cmarshall.com/miscellaneous/MikeMarshall.htm). People die when military secrets get exposed. That's often completely unintended, but it happens anyway. My father had a post similar to that held by Valerie Plame. If he had been exposed (like she was), then all his contacts would have been murdered, along with, I am sure, folks he worked with legit.
pell 6y ago
I'm not a fan of Assange and I think the allegations in Sweden were credible. But what is currently happening to him is beyond unjust.
- lambdaba 6y ago
  Why do you think they are? I ask because I haven't researched beyond the initial news stories.
  - notkaiho 6y ago
    Aren't the initial news stories credible?
    - Ygg2 6y ago
      Aren't the news dead silent in regards to that accusation? Moment US raised its charges, the Sweden rape case is nowhere to be found. Not to mention, Assanage agreed to that investigation if they could guarantee not to be extradited to US.
      - input_sh 6y ago
        That's because Sweden allegations are discontinued. Quick time frame of the latest development: 2017-05-19: Suspended investigation, revoked arrest warrant. Statement that the investigation can be resumed if Assange visited Sweden before August 2020. 2019-04-11: Case re-opened following his arrest. In September of this year 7 new witnesses were revealed. 2019-11-19: Investigation discontinued, stating "the evidence is not strong enough to form the basis for filing an indictment", adding that "the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed", but the prosecutor was still confident in the complainant. I personally believe that he's guilty due to the sheer amount of witnesses, but that circumstances around it will result in the victims never achieving justice.
        chmod775 6y ago
henearkr 6y ago
I feel nausea... This and the new anti-encryption bills... I am happy to know the existence such a lot of great American minds, mathematicians, scientists, visionaries, because, else, with only the kind of ugly news such as above, my image of US would have been tainted for good. (*) I'm not American. I'm neutral about not being American, thanks to the existence of both plus and minus items. By the way of course you can say the same about pretty much any country.
- notkaiho 6y ago
  I may be misunderstanding your comment, but Assange is Australian.
  - henearkr 6y ago
    Oh, sorry if it was not very clear, I was saying that US treatment of the Assange case was disgusting me. By "American great minds", I was thinking about all the American mathematicians and scientists whose books I passionately devour, and the splendid futuristic projects of some tech corps, which bring sci-fi dreams to reality.
    - ReptileMan 6y ago
      I mean ... the US has not even got hands on him yet. He hasn't been in US custody for a second. There is absolutely no case. Yet. If you want to feel contempt strongly towards someone - the UK, Ecuador and Sweden governments are the ones to blame so far.
      - henearkr 6y ago
        Yes, you're right. But the pressure to do so comes from the US all the same... You're right that what's happening in UK with Assange is very disturbing... I followed Craig Murray's blog posts.
        hardlianotion 6y ago
swalsh 6y ago
Wow some actual hacker news.
op03 6y ago
Feels like the last decade has shown Leaking to the General Public is not very productive. As in outcomes are poor. There is always something else lined up every 2 minutes to pull attention away from the leak. I am not sure if anyone studies "leaking effectiveness" but I am guessing in info tsunami conditions larger the leak less impact it has. Cause no one knows whose network of power is going to get impacted so everyone does nothing.
- lapinot 6y ago
  So now more and more mainstream OS have storage encryption easily enabled, everyone in tech seems to need to communicate about how much their product is privacy friendly and you would still say that the last decade of tech leaks hasn't been very productive? I'm not saying that it changed everything and that we're now safe, far from that. But at least that topic is now unavoidable.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    Is this a joke? We have an innocent man in prison and war criminals beyond reproach. I am for setting realistic goals, but letting this fly will have severe long term repercussions.
  - op03 6y ago
    Valid point about technical changes. But most of the big leaks were sold as if they would lead to social/political/economic changes.
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      Technology doesn't exist in its own bubble isolated from society, politics, and economy. Changes in mainstream OSs and mainstreaming privacy concerns are absolutely the result of social, political, and economic change. Keep in mind the companies involved in these technological changes make up a huge portion of our economy, and their users affected by their app store changes, for example, touch every sector. These changes come due to social pressure--these companies aren't doing this out of the goodness of their heart. And particularly with regards to Facebook, political pressure is being placed on them to self-regulate with regard to user data to avoid government regulation. I am not accusing you of being anti-leaking (or pro-leaking), but it does sound like you've fallen for an anti-leaking narrative here.
nickysielicki 6y ago
> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked materials would be from the CIA, NSA, or the New York Times. WikiLeaks obtained and published emails from a data breach committed against an American intelligence consulting company by an “Anonymous” and LulzSec-affiliated hacker. According to that hacker, Assange indirectly asked him to spam that victim company again. This is almost certainly sabu/Hector Monsegur. [1] This guy put Jeremy Hammond [2] behind bars, and now he's being used to bring down Julian Freaking Assange. More lives ruined than you can count on one hand. I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. Not once. Julian Assange is in solitary confinement in a prison on bullshit charges, and this is just another one. Stand up for journalists. Real journalists. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Monsegur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Monsegur [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond edit: as pointed out below, Assange was moved from solitary confinement in February.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  Assange is not in solitary confinement, please don't spread falsehoods
  - kekebo 6y ago
    He used to be until end of january this year. While outdated it's not a falsehood per se.
  - nickysielicki 6y ago
    Thanks for this, I hadn't seen the news that he had been moved out of solitary confinement. I'm happy to be wrong, that's good news. I'll edit the parent comment. > Jailed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is no longer being kept in solitary confinement and his health is improving, his spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson told reporters on Tuesday. - Feb. 2020 [1] [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-assange/wikileaks-founder-assanges-health-improving-in-prison-spokesman-idUSKBN20C19Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-assange/wikileaks...
thatlongthrow1 6y ago
Wikileaks used to be something, then Assange decided to filter leaks based on whatever biases he felt that day. He alienated a lot of his initial supporters doing this, focusing only on leaking content from "the west." Later fully engaging with state sponsored hackers to meddle in the US election[1] while again ignoring any leaks about Russia[2] and friends. As far as I can tell there is nothing left of Wikileaks, its just Assange now. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt6BBwBXcAEL-Fj?format=jpg&name=orig https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt6BBwBXcAEL-Fj?format=jpg&name=... >"if you have anything hillary related we (Wikileaks) want it in the next tweo(sic) days prefable(sic) because the Democratic National Convention is approaching.." [2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... >WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy. >“As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time. >By June 2016, Assange had threatened to dump files on Clinton that would be damaging to her campaign prospects. A month later, on July 22, WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of emails out of the Democratic National Committee — preceding the massive dumps in October of emails belonging to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. >In late August 2016, when WikiLeaks’s Clinton disclosures were in full swing, Assange said he had information on Trump but that it wasn’t worth publishing. (In a message to FP, WikiLeaks now says the organization “received no original documents on the campaign that did not turn out to be already public.”) Weird that data "already being public" didn't stop Wikileaks from forwarding the content before when it came from Russian backed fronts: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 >@wikileaks >Pro-Russia hacker site (or front) "Cyber Berkut" publishes alleged links between Ukraine and Clinton
- ganzuul 6y ago
  You sound as warmblooded as a snake. Got any facts to back up these claims with prosecutor?
  - mellosouls 6y ago
tomalpha 6y ago
It’s not hard to work out what it means, but the headline should probably either be: “Julian Assange Charged...” or the original “Wikileaks Founder Charged...” The current half-and-half is a little strange (who founded Julian Assange?).
- giarc 6y ago
  I agree, I figured they were charging someone else that helped found the Julian Assange Foundation or something.
  - ficklepickle 6y ago
    My first sleepy-brained thought was that they charged his parents for creating him.
- john4532452 6y ago
  Thanks. I thought i am missing something fundamental in English Grammar.
say_it_as_it_is 6y ago
Assange helped Trump win the election. Now, the administration that he enabled is coming for him. What a turn of events.
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  I don't know why you're being downvoted. Assange leaked the DNC emails, hacked by Russian-controlled Guccifer 2.0, in weekly bundles as an effort to manipulate news headlines leading up to the November 2016 election.
interestica 6y ago
"Julian Assange Founder"? Headline needs a fix. Though, it may be speaking to that cog association that people have formed: 'Assange=wikileaks'....
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  bugger yes indeed, ... apologies. it originally said "wikileaks founder" which I sloppily editorialized. I should not have bothered with it.
dontfear 6y ago
I love how part of the evidence is Julian’s public talks. I do not trust US Attorneys because they have a habit of lying and twisting facts. The original indictment against Julian was very short and ridiculous. Let’s hope those around President Trump encourage him to pardon Julian on principle. If it’s not him, a future President will pardon him.
stormdennis 6y ago
Given that there's no way countries would consider acceding to an extradition request for one of their spooks how is it legal to extradite a citizen doing the same thing the government does?
T3RMINATED 6y ago
I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. Not once. Julian Assange is in solitary confinement in a prison on bullshit charges, and this is just another one.
paulchap 6y ago
Maybe I'm just too much of a pessimist, but I think Assange (and others like him) are naive to assume that bringing leaks to the general public really has that much of an effect in today's world - people just don't care enough. You won't find many people actually reading the documents... maybe they notice those going viral, but that's probably it. People don't associate WikiLeaks with the idea of transparency, they associate it with scandals. A tabloid newspaper isn't something the majority of the population respects. WikiLeaks seems to share that negative image. Most of my (Gen Z) peers don't even know WikiLeaks exists.
- annadane 6y ago
  What are they meant to do then? Nothing? I'm super confused by your comment
  - paulchap 6y ago
    I'm not saying they shouldn't have done what they did. I'm just saying that, from what I've read from him, Assange totally miscalculated the effect this would have on the public. The Manning Documents didn't lead to fundamental changes in society. Neither did leaking US diplomatic cables. I'm not really criticizing their actions (well, I'm calling them naive, which, in retrospect, seems like a bad choice of words). If I'm criticizing anyone, it would be our society in general, which only engages with information in a very shallow fashion.
muststopmyths 6y ago
"wikileaks" missing in the title
tareqak 6y ago
The current title is “Julian Assange Founder Charged in Superseding Indictment”. The original title is “WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Superseding Indictment”. It really seems like someone forgot to remove the word “Founder”.
tehjoker 6y ago
Let's not forget that the Obama administration refused to prosecute Assange because they couldn't find a way to do it that wouldn't criminalize ordinary journalism (talking to sources, encouraging them to give you more info, telling them how to stay safe). The current administration is perusing this case precisely because they would like the power to criminalize investigative journalism, the only kind that's actually valuable. Without it, everything that appears in the news is just stenography of state propaganda. "As the Obama DOJ Concluded, Prosecution of Julian Assange for Publishing Documents Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedom" by Glenn Greenwald https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/ https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-conclud...
- dashundchen 6y ago
  Also remember Julian Assange promised to turn himself in if Chelsea Manning was granted clemency. Obama commuted Manning's sentence towards the end of his second term and Assange immediately backtracked. https://thenextweb.com/world/2017/01/18/assange-backtracks-on-promise-to-turn-himself-in-upon-mannings-release/ https://thenextweb.com/world/2017/01/18/assange-backtracks-o...
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    That isn't a great look for him, but given he's not a US citizen and the alleged crimes were not committed in US territory, and the crimes in fact were the publication of information embarrassing to the government means the US is claiming global jurisdiction to criminalize press freedoms. The issues at stake are greater than the dumb things the overconfident and sometimes assholish Julian Assange says.
cletus 6y ago
So Americans love nothing more than to see the world as a collection of slippery slopes so there'll be the Assange defenders who argue this is an attack on press freedom but... I urge you to look a little deeper. There are two major issues here: 1. Assange actively participated in the acquisition of classified material. This came up in the Chelsea Manning. Pointing to tools that can be useful. Prompting action. That sort of thing; and 2. Assange was playing politics. This should've been clear from Assange's actions with respect to the DNC emails. Think about (1) for a second. Imagine the Attorney General had committed a crime. Proof of that was in a safe in his house. Which of the following is acceptable conduct in obtaining that information? - Breaking into his house to get it; - Destroying the safe to get at the contents; - Holding him at gunpoint to open the safe; - Holding his family hostage until he provides the information; - Hiring someone to do any of the above; - Someone offers the information to you without you knowing how it came to be in their possession; - Someone notifies you of the information's existence and location. You pay them to acquire it. Or give them a gun. Or threaten them if they don't. The point of these examples is to show that: 1. There is no absolute defense here and certainly not "journalism". The alternative is robbing banks as an expression of journalistic freedom; and 2. If you commit a crime, you commit a crime and the authorities can prosecute you for that. The other side of this is recent administrations seem to have adopted a disproportionate response approach to dealing with leaks and whistleblowers, likely as a deterrent (they hope).
- bluesign 6y ago
  Imagine for a second, someone telling you there is proof in safe, you telling them to acquire this proof from this safe (which has access), then this person is caught and later pardoned by potus. Later they come after you. I am not from US, but this kinda doesnt look right.
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
It is not unexpected. Annoying, but not unexpected. Incidentally, since Assange technically helped current president win, I am surprised he is not getting more lenient treatment. With Hillary I fully expected a vendetta.
- timmytokyo 6y ago
  Indeed. On the day of the election, Assange and Donald Trump Jr. engaged in a direct message conversation via Twitter, where Assange stated: “Hi Don if your father ‘loses’ we think it is much more interesting if he DOES NOT conceed [sic] and spends time CHALLENGING the media and other types of rigging that occurred—as he has implied that he might do." These are the words of a political actor, not a journalist. A month after the election, Wikileaks requested an extraordinary favor from Trump: to ask the Australian government for Assange's appointment as ambassador to the U.S. “Hi Don. Hope you’re doing well! In relation to Mr. Assange: Obama/Clinton placed pressure on Sweden, UK and Australia (his home country) to illicitly go after Mr. Assange. It would be real easy and helpful for your dad to suggest that Australia appoint Assange ambassador to [Washington,] DC.” With requests like these, it becomes clear why Assange was helping Trump win the election. It was to improve his chances to escape detention in the UK. It had little to do with exposing the truth. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...
tdhz77 6y ago
Wikileaks is just a Russian propaganda unit disguised as wind of change.
- jsf01 6y ago
  Interesting that Russia would publish self incriminating documents and evidence of their own malfeasance within Ukraine and corruption elsewhere. Really makes you think.
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    Source? Because the majority of the 'leaks' posted by WL about Russia were outdated/minimal. Meanwhile, Julian Assanage has a television show on RT[1], the state-sponsored media for the Russian government [2], meaning he's literally paid by a Russian propaganda organization. [1] https://www.rt.com/news/456280-julian-assange-rt-show/ https://www.rt.com/news/456280-julian-assange-rt-show/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Assessments_and_responses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Assessments_an...
    - fwklein 6y ago
      RT was just one of a dozen media outlets Assange had offered his show to in 2012. His show was produced completely independent from RT. By the way, Larry King had a show on RT. Is he a russian stooge now too?
      - three_seagrass 6y ago
        Except Julian Assange's show premiered specifically for and on RT[1], and it would have been weird for RT to produce it as a news network. Larry King didn't premier on RT and didn't leak emails from Russian state-sponsored hackers Guccifer 2.0. You've created an HN account for the sole purpose of astroturfing this thread to apologize for Assange against Russian allegations - Why is that? [1] https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/assange-tv-presented-by-the-kremlin/ https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/assange-tv-pres...
AsyncAwait 6y ago
Whatever your opinion of Assange is, make no mistake that actual criminals he released info on are still walking free, including war criminals killing civilians and reporters, because the U.S. government does not want them prosecuted.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
hootbootscoot 6y ago
... more shooting the messenger... villains.
baby 6y ago
inb4 people turn on Julian Assange because they think he's the reason Trump got elected. SMH.
jb775 6y ago
What this man did was a significant benefit to humanity, but an embarrassment to the US. Most American leaders probably wouldn't refute that on an individual level, but would be risking their political careers to openly admit it. Dropping charges entirely would send the wrong signal to the world. Hopefully the UK just holds him indefinitely and treats him with respect. A US trial would turn into a political shitshow.
jb775 6y ago
> the broadened hacking conspiracy continues to allege that Assange conspired with Army Intelligence Analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password hash to a classified U.S. Department of Defense computer. Can you imagine the euphoria in the moment they cracked the hash? Feels like something out of a Nicolas Cage movie.

I do not see president Biden pardoning Assange

jessaustin 6y ago
That's why I voted for Tulsi.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  Tulsi is on the BJP/VHP payroll and if you think Trump has a thing for Muslim bans/camps and cozying up to dictators, you ain't seen nothing yet.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Nobody's perfect. Tulsi was the only presidential candidate to credibly (because we remember the false promises of W, O, and T) speak about reigning in our omnicidal war mania. If you're referring to her "cozying up" to Assad... a) he's also Muslim, b) [EDIT:] why tell lies? When Tulsi joined the diplomatic mission to Syria, it was entirely appropriate given her service on the House Armed Services Committee. She never said anything to support him. She just said she wasn't afraid to talk with him. Furthermore, the international inspectors who actually inspected the supposed gas attacks [0] determined they were obvious false flags. Then the OPCW home office threw out their analyses and just had bellincat write some bullshit. Of course it's easy to pretend one doesn't know about this because NYT etc. will never retract their cheerleading for war. [0] https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/22/ian-henderson-opcw-whistleblower-un-no-chemical-attack-douma-syria/ https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/22/ian-henderson-opcw-whistl...
34679 6y ago
I guess I'll just have to keep voting for Libertarians. https://joj2020.com/ https://joj2020.com/

I think this really kills the idea that Assange was ever a real journalist. Directing cyber attacks and theft of information is not journalism.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Being a journalist is not an endorsement of character. You can be a criminal and a journalist, a thief and a journalist, a horrible person and a journalist.
- strictnein 6y ago
  But how you obtain your information definitely does change whether or not you should be called a "journalist". If your information is obtained through blackmail, for instance, you are not a journalist you are an extortionist.
  - banads 6y ago
    >journalist: a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast.
  - drak0n1c 6y ago
    Even mainstream Vox [1], NBC [2], and NYT [3] reporters have recently contacted corporations and individuals threatening to name and shame them if they do not issue an apology, assist with a story, or add their weight to a deplatforming/demonetization campaign. Do those acts of extortion render those individuals and their supporting editors not-journalists too? I don’t think so. Ethical lapses, deplorable though they may be, are perfectly compatible with still fulfilling the role of a profession. [1] YouTube adpocalypse effort led by Carlos Maza [2] NBC’s repetitive naming of Google Ads and brands alongside cherry picked comments on Zero Hedge and The Federalist to delist those competitors. [3] NYT recent threat to doxx the Scott Alexander blog
- hackinthebochs 6y ago
  But then you can't use being a journalist as a shield for illegal behavior.

Temasik 6y ago

so craig wright was right?

mcv 6y ago

> "Since the early days of WikiLeaks, Assange has spoken at hacking conferences to tout his own history as a “famous teenage hacker in Australia” and to encourage others to hack to obtain information for WikiLeaks. In 2009, for instance, Assange told the Hacking At Random conference that WikiLeaks had obtained nonpublic documents from the Congressional Research Service by exploiting “a small vulnerability” inside the document distribution system of the United States Congress, and then asserted that “[t]his is what any one of you would find if you were actually looking.”" I don't remember that detail at all, but I did see him at HAR 2009, at a panel discussion about censorship and how to fight it. Afterward we set up a mailinglist for sharing information about censorship-related issues, especially laws and protests against them. It was never terribly active, unfortunately.

DJBunnies 6y ago
I remember him very carefully offering a distinction of what hacking meant in terms of him. He describes the old school term, meaning hacking programs together to make something, not the one meaning to break into/steal.
- ObsoleteNerd 6y ago
  In the earlier days he very clearly stated he was a hacker “in the Australian scene” and name dropped various IRC channels etc. I have no idea if it was true or not, but I recognised some of the channels mentioned hence it stuck with me.

LockAndLol 6y ago

The judgement was made long before Assange even set foot in the US. This is just a show to try and deter other people from exposing their dirty secrets. If they could get Snowden, he'd be treated in the same manner for exposing their misdeeds. It's a rigged game.

jasonvorhe 6y ago
Do you have proof of that?
- YPCrumble 6y ago
  Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the government at this point that they wouldn’t do everything in their power to spy on citizens and punish people for trying to stop them?
  - cptskippy 6y ago
    The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Assange is the one in jail. If "proof" had any chance of putting e.g. Pompeo in jail, we'd be happy to provide it.
      - cptskippy 6y ago
        I'm not defending anyone. In my opinion everyone involved in this stinks. Everyone on both sides has been doing shady and questionable things.
GVIrish 6y ago
What judgement? This is an indictment. If the government can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and he is convicted, then that would be a judgment. These are simply charges that Assange would face if he is ever extradited to the US.

moomin 6y ago

Hang on, did they just accuse Chelsea Manning of attempting to hack computer systems? Is that a new allegation? To the best of my knowledge she only ever used access she already had, not attempted privilege escalation. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
That was my understanding, as well. I was under the impression that Manning already had pretty carte blanche access to a lot of stuff, and that was how she was able to get it in the first place. Maybe one of the items she provided to Assange was encrypted, and he worked to break the encryption, without consulting Manning.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nickysielicki 6y ago
  It's so much worse than this. Via instant messenger, Manning asked Assange whether Wikileaks could crack NTLM hashes. Assange said (paraphrasing), "Yeah, we can probably do that." Manning sent the hashes. Assange said he'd work on cracking them. A few days later, Manning asked if the hashes had been cracked. Assange replied that there hadn't been any progress. End of story. That's a federal crime. No hashes were cracked, let alone sent back to Manning. No additional access was gained. He simply agreed to accept the hashes from Manning, which were freely offered. Maybe he agreed because he didn't want to spook his source. Maybe he never even started hashcat. We'll never know. edit: source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html (middle of page 6)
  - ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
    Ah. Yes. That makes sense. People like Manning and Snowden expose nastiness, but, at the same time, we absolutely need to ensure military and espionage secrets (Full disclosure: my father was in the CIA, but quit on moral grounds - http://cmarshall.com/miscellaneous/MikeMarshall.htm http://cmarshall.com/miscellaneous/MikeMarshall.htm). People die when military secrets get exposed. That's often completely unintended, but it happens anyway. My father had a post similar to that held by Valerie Plame. If he had been exposed (like she was), then all his contacts would have been murdered, along with, I am sure, folks he worked with legit.

pell 6y ago

I'm not a fan of Assange and I think the allegations in Sweden were credible. But what is currently happening to him is beyond unjust.

lambdaba 6y ago
Why do you think they are? I ask because I haven't researched beyond the initial news stories.
- notkaiho 6y ago
  Aren't the initial news stories credible?
  - Ygg2 6y ago
    Aren't the news dead silent in regards to that accusation? Moment US raised its charges, the Sweden rape case is nowhere to be found. Not to mention, Assanage agreed to that investigation if they could guarantee not to be extradited to US.
    - input_sh 6y ago
      That's because Sweden allegations are discontinued. Quick time frame of the latest development: 2017-05-19: Suspended investigation, revoked arrest warrant. Statement that the investigation can be resumed if Assange visited Sweden before August 2020. 2019-04-11: Case re-opened following his arrest. In September of this year 7 new witnesses were revealed. 2019-11-19: Investigation discontinued, stating "the evidence is not strong enough to form the basis for filing an indictment", adding that "the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed", but the prosecutor was still confident in the complainant. I personally believe that he's guilty due to the sheer amount of witnesses, but that circumstances around it will result in the victims never achieving justice.
      - chmod775 6y ago

henearkr 6y ago

I feel nausea... This and the new anti-encryption bills... I am happy to know the existence such a lot of great American minds, mathematicians, scientists, visionaries, because, else, with only the kind of ugly news such as above, my image of US would have been tainted for good. (*) I'm not American. I'm neutral about not being American, thanks to the existence of both plus and minus items. By the way of course you can say the same about pretty much any country.

notkaiho 6y ago
I may be misunderstanding your comment, but Assange is Australian.
- henearkr 6y ago
  Oh, sorry if it was not very clear, I was saying that US treatment of the Assange case was disgusting me. By "American great minds", I was thinking about all the American mathematicians and scientists whose books I passionately devour, and the splendid futuristic projects of some tech corps, which bring sci-fi dreams to reality.
  - ReptileMan 6y ago
    I mean ... the US has not even got hands on him yet. He hasn't been in US custody for a second. There is absolutely no case. Yet. If you want to feel contempt strongly towards someone - the UK, Ecuador and Sweden governments are the ones to blame so far.
    - henearkr 6y ago
      Yes, you're right. But the pressure to do so comes from the US all the same... You're right that what's happening in UK with Assange is very disturbing... I followed Craig Murray's blog posts.
      - hardlianotion 6y ago

swalsh 6y ago

Wow some actual hacker news.

op03 6y ago

Feels like the last decade has shown Leaking to the General Public is not very productive. As in outcomes are poor. There is always something else lined up every 2 minutes to pull attention away from the leak. I am not sure if anyone studies "leaking effectiveness" but I am guessing in info tsunami conditions larger the leak less impact it has. Cause no one knows whose network of power is going to get impacted so everyone does nothing.

lapinot 6y ago
So now more and more mainstream OS have storage encryption easily enabled, everyone in tech seems to need to communicate about how much their product is privacy friendly and you would still say that the last decade of tech leaks hasn't been very productive? I'm not saying that it changed everything and that we're now safe, far from that. But at least that topic is now unavoidable.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Is this a joke? We have an innocent man in prison and war criminals beyond reproach. I am for setting realistic goals, but letting this fly will have severe long term repercussions.
- op03 6y ago
  Valid point about technical changes. But most of the big leaks were sold as if they would lead to social/political/economic changes.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    Technology doesn't exist in its own bubble isolated from society, politics, and economy. Changes in mainstream OSs and mainstreaming privacy concerns are absolutely the result of social, political, and economic change. Keep in mind the companies involved in these technological changes make up a huge portion of our economy, and their users affected by their app store changes, for example, touch every sector. These changes come due to social pressure--these companies aren't doing this out of the goodness of their heart. And particularly with regards to Facebook, political pressure is being placed on them to self-regulate with regard to user data to avoid government regulation. I am not accusing you of being anti-leaking (or pro-leaking), but it does sound like you've fallen for an anti-leaking narrative here.

nickysielicki 6y ago

> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked materials would be from the CIA, NSA, or the New York Times. WikiLeaks obtained and published emails from a data breach committed against an American intelligence consulting company by an “Anonymous” and LulzSec-affiliated hacker. According to that hacker, Assange indirectly asked him to spam that victim company again. This is almost certainly sabu/Hector Monsegur. [1] This guy put Jeremy Hammond [2] behind bars, and now he's being used to bring down Julian Freaking Assange. More lives ruined than you can count on one hand. I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. Not once. Julian Assange is in solitary confinement in a prison on bullshit charges, and this is just another one. Stand up for journalists. Real journalists. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Monsegur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Monsegur [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond edit: as pointed out below, Assange was moved from solitary confinement in February.

JoeSmithson 6y ago
Assange is not in solitary confinement, please don't spread falsehoods
- kekebo 6y ago
  He used to be until end of january this year. While outdated it's not a falsehood per se.
- nickysielicki 6y ago
  Thanks for this, I hadn't seen the news that he had been moved out of solitary confinement. I'm happy to be wrong, that's good news. I'll edit the parent comment. > Jailed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is no longer being kept in solitary confinement and his health is improving, his spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson told reporters on Tuesday. - Feb. 2020 [1] [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-assange/wikileaks-founder-assanges-health-improving-in-prison-spokesman-idUSKBN20C19Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-assange/wikileaks...

thatlongthrow1 6y ago

Wikileaks used to be something, then Assange decided to filter leaks based on whatever biases he felt that day. He alienated a lot of his initial supporters doing this, focusing only on leaking content from "the west." Later fully engaging with state sponsored hackers to meddle in the US election[1] while again ignoring any leaks about Russia[2] and friends. As far as I can tell there is nothing left of Wikileaks, its just Assange now. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt6BBwBXcAEL-Fj?format=jpg&name=orig https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt6BBwBXcAEL-Fj?format=jpg&name=... >"if you have anything hillary related we (Wikileaks) want it in the next tweo(sic) days prefable(sic) because the Democratic National Convention is approaching.." [2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... >WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy. >“As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time. >By June 2016, Assange had threatened to dump files on Clinton that would be damaging to her campaign prospects. A month later, on July 22, WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of emails out of the Democratic National Committee — preceding the massive dumps in October of emails belonging to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. >In late August 2016, when WikiLeaks’s Clinton disclosures were in full swing, Assange said he had information on Trump but that it wasn’t worth publishing. (In a message to FP, WikiLeaks now says the organization “received no original documents on the campaign that did not turn out to be already public.”) Weird that data "already being public" didn't stop Wikileaks from forwarding the content before when it came from Russian backed fronts: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 >@wikileaks >Pro-Russia hacker site (or front) "Cyber Berkut" publishes alleged links between Ukraine and Clinton

ganzuul 6y ago
You sound as warmblooded as a snake. Got any facts to back up these claims with prosecutor?
- mellosouls 6y ago

tomalpha 6y ago

It’s not hard to work out what it means, but the headline should probably either be: “Julian Assange Charged...” or the original “Wikileaks Founder Charged...” The current half-and-half is a little strange (who founded Julian Assange?).

giarc 6y ago
I agree, I figured they were charging someone else that helped found the Julian Assange Foundation or something.
- ficklepickle 6y ago
  My first sleepy-brained thought was that they charged his parents for creating him.
john4532452 6y ago
Thanks. I thought i am missing something fundamental in English Grammar.

say_it_as_it_is 6y ago

Assange helped Trump win the election. Now, the administration that he enabled is coming for him. What a turn of events.

three_seagrass 6y ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted. Assange leaked the DNC emails, hacked by Russian-controlled Guccifer 2.0, in weekly bundles as an effort to manipulate news headlines leading up to the November 2016 election.

interestica 6y ago

"Julian Assange Founder"? Headline needs a fix. Though, it may be speaking to that cog association that people have formed: 'Assange=wikileaks'....

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
bugger yes indeed, ... apologies. it originally said "wikileaks founder" which I sloppily editorialized. I should not have bothered with it.

dontfear 6y ago

I love how part of the evidence is Julian’s public talks. I do not trust US Attorneys because they have a habit of lying and twisting facts. The original indictment against Julian was very short and ridiculous. Let’s hope those around President Trump encourage him to pardon Julian on principle. If it’s not him, a future President will pardon him.

stormdennis 6y ago

Given that there's no way countries would consider acceding to an extradition request for one of their spooks how is it legal to extradite a citizen doing the same thing the government does?

T3RMINATED 6y ago

I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. Not once. Julian Assange is in solitary confinement in a prison on bullshit charges, and this is just another one.

paulchap 6y ago

Maybe I'm just too much of a pessimist, but I think Assange (and others like him) are naive to assume that bringing leaks to the general public really has that much of an effect in today's world - people just don't care enough. You won't find many people actually reading the documents... maybe they notice those going viral, but that's probably it. People don't associate WikiLeaks with the idea of transparency, they associate it with scandals. A tabloid newspaper isn't something the majority of the population respects. WikiLeaks seems to share that negative image. Most of my (Gen Z) peers don't even know WikiLeaks exists.

annadane 6y ago
What are they meant to do then? Nothing? I'm super confused by your comment
- paulchap 6y ago
  I'm not saying they shouldn't have done what they did. I'm just saying that, from what I've read from him, Assange totally miscalculated the effect this would have on the public. The Manning Documents didn't lead to fundamental changes in society. Neither did leaking US diplomatic cables. I'm not really criticizing their actions (well, I'm calling them naive, which, in retrospect, seems like a bad choice of words). If I'm criticizing anyone, it would be our society in general, which only engages with information in a very shallow fashion.

muststopmyths 6y ago

"wikileaks" missing in the title

tareqak 6y ago

The current title is “Julian Assange Founder Charged in Superseding Indictment”. The original title is “WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Superseding Indictment”. It really seems like someone forgot to remove the word “Founder”.

tehjoker 6y ago

Let's not forget that the Obama administration refused to prosecute Assange because they couldn't find a way to do it that wouldn't criminalize ordinary journalism (talking to sources, encouraging them to give you more info, telling them how to stay safe). The current administration is perusing this case precisely because they would like the power to criminalize investigative journalism, the only kind that's actually valuable. Without it, everything that appears in the news is just stenography of state propaganda. "As the Obama DOJ Concluded, Prosecution of Julian Assange for Publishing Documents Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedom" by Glenn Greenwald https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/ https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-conclud...

dashundchen 6y ago
Also remember Julian Assange promised to turn himself in if Chelsea Manning was granted clemency. Obama commuted Manning's sentence towards the end of his second term and Assange immediately backtracked. https://thenextweb.com/world/2017/01/18/assange-backtracks-on-promise-to-turn-himself-in-upon-mannings-release/ https://thenextweb.com/world/2017/01/18/assange-backtracks-o...
- tehjoker 6y ago
  That isn't a great look for him, but given he's not a US citizen and the alleged crimes were not committed in US territory, and the crimes in fact were the publication of information embarrassing to the government means the US is claiming global jurisdiction to criminalize press freedoms. The issues at stake are greater than the dumb things the overconfident and sometimes assholish Julian Assange says.

cletus 6y ago

So Americans love nothing more than to see the world as a collection of slippery slopes so there'll be the Assange defenders who argue this is an attack on press freedom but... I urge you to look a little deeper. There are two major issues here: 1. Assange actively participated in the acquisition of classified material. This came up in the Chelsea Manning. Pointing to tools that can be useful. Prompting action. That sort of thing; and 2. Assange was playing politics. This should've been clear from Assange's actions with respect to the DNC emails. Think about (1) for a second. Imagine the Attorney General had committed a crime. Proof of that was in a safe in his house. Which of the following is acceptable conduct in obtaining that information? - Breaking into his house to get it; - Destroying the safe to get at the contents; - Holding him at gunpoint to open the safe; - Holding his family hostage until he provides the information; - Hiring someone to do any of the above; - Someone offers the information to you without you knowing how it came to be in their possession; - Someone notifies you of the information's existence and location. You pay them to acquire it. Or give them a gun. Or threaten them if they don't. The point of these examples is to show that: 1. There is no absolute defense here and certainly not "journalism". The alternative is robbing banks as an expression of journalistic freedom; and 2. If you commit a crime, you commit a crime and the authorities can prosecute you for that. The other side of this is recent administrations seem to have adopted a disproportionate response approach to dealing with leaks and whistleblowers, likely as a deterrent (they hope).

bluesign 6y ago
Imagine for a second, someone telling you there is proof in safe, you telling them to acquire this proof from this safe (which has access), then this person is caught and later pardoned by potus. Later they come after you. I am not from US, but this kinda doesnt look right.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

It is not unexpected. Annoying, but not unexpected. Incidentally, since Assange technically helped current president win, I am surprised he is not getting more lenient treatment. With Hillary I fully expected a vendetta.

timmytokyo 6y ago
Indeed. On the day of the election, Assange and Donald Trump Jr. engaged in a direct message conversation via Twitter, where Assange stated: “Hi Don if your father ‘loses’ we think it is much more interesting if he DOES NOT conceed [sic] and spends time CHALLENGING the media and other types of rigging that occurred—as he has implied that he might do." These are the words of a political actor, not a journalist. A month after the election, Wikileaks requested an extraordinary favor from Trump: to ask the Australian government for Assange's appointment as ambassador to the U.S. “Hi Don. Hope you’re doing well! In relation to Mr. Assange: Obama/Clinton placed pressure on Sweden, UK and Australia (his home country) to illicitly go after Mr. Assange. It would be real easy and helpful for your dad to suggest that Australia appoint Assange ambassador to [Washington,] DC.” With requests like these, it becomes clear why Assange was helping Trump win the election. It was to improve his chances to escape detention in the UK. It had little to do with exposing the truth. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...

tdhz77 6y ago

Wikileaks is just a Russian propaganda unit disguised as wind of change.

jsf01 6y ago
Interesting that Russia would publish self incriminating documents and evidence of their own malfeasance within Ukraine and corruption elsewhere. Really makes you think.
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  Source? Because the majority of the 'leaks' posted by WL about Russia were outdated/minimal. Meanwhile, Julian Assanage has a television show on RT[1], the state-sponsored media for the Russian government [2], meaning he's literally paid by a Russian propaganda organization. [1] https://www.rt.com/news/456280-julian-assange-rt-show/ https://www.rt.com/news/456280-julian-assange-rt-show/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Assessments_and_responses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Assessments_an...
  - fwklein 6y ago
    RT was just one of a dozen media outlets Assange had offered his show to in 2012. His show was produced completely independent from RT. By the way, Larry King had a show on RT. Is he a russian stooge now too?
    - three_seagrass 6y ago
      Except Julian Assange's show premiered specifically for and on RT[1], and it would have been weird for RT to produce it as a news network. Larry King didn't premier on RT and didn't leak emails from Russian state-sponsored hackers Guccifer 2.0. You've created an HN account for the sole purpose of astroturfing this thread to apologize for Assange against Russian allegations - Why is that? [1] https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/assange-tv-presented-by-the-kremlin/ https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/assange-tv-pres...

AsyncAwait 6y ago

Whatever your opinion of Assange is, make no mistake that actual criminals he released info on are still walking free, including war criminals killing civilians and reporters, because the U.S. government does not want them prosecuted.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

hootbootscoot 6y ago

... more shooting the messenger... villains.

baby 6y ago

inb4 people turn on Julian Assange because they think he's the reason Trump got elected. SMH.

jb775 6y ago

What this man did was a significant benefit to humanity, but an embarrassment to the US. Most American leaders probably wouldn't refute that on an individual level, but would be risking their political careers to openly admit it. Dropping charges entirely would send the wrong signal to the world. Hopefully the UK just holds him indefinitely and treats him with respect. A US trial would turn into a political shitshow.

jb775 6y ago

> the broadened hacking conspiracy continues to allege that Assange conspired with Army Intelligence Analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password hash to a classified U.S. Department of Defense computer. Can you imagine the euphoria in the moment they cracked the hash? Feels like something out of a Nicolas Cage movie.