3 ms·

A lot of comments are (rightfully) condemning American atrocity, but let’s not lose sight that it is defense for Assange as well. His actions clearly came with

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

A lot of comments are (rightfully) condemning American atrocity, but let’s not lose sight that it is defense for Assange as well. His actions clearly came with the moral imperative of whistleblowing - even just this one example shows the humanitarian crimes that would go unrevealed if the leaked documents weren’t published. There’s just no way to pretend like Assange caused harm or violated law - whistleblowing is not stealing, it’s not treason, it’s not endangerment of affected government perpetrators. It’s the exposure of mass scale criminal murder and torture.

Fnoord 6y ago
The problem I have with him is that his massive leaks were politically motivated. The helicopter who shot journalists, that movie was genuine, and a proper leak. All the diplomatic cables being leaked? Clinton's e-mails? I don't believe all of that was in the public interest. He fell in the trap of making it political, us vs them (why he went in bed with the Russians), and disregarding operational safety.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  I don’t see any basis it could be disputed in the case of the diplomatic cables. This very witness’s testimony proves it (as his torture and subsequent efforts by the US to pressure Germany and Spain to take no action when the criminal nature of it was learned - it was only brought to light because of the leaked cables, as explained in this post). These facts render it moot what you or I might personally think about his political motivations. Not only are such speculations not a basis for any of the charges, but the very evidence itself (the cables) requires us to see the humanitarian imperative that they be leaked and thus to view leakers and publishers as whistleblowers, setting all speculated internal motives we can’t prove (and which don’t supersede the moral imperative here) aside. In the case of the DNC email leaks, I could see a better argument that it was political, but then it also wouldn’t matter. None of the Espionage Act charges or accusations of putting US agents in grave harm are based on leaked DNC emails, only Iraq War leaks and the diplomatic cables. It would be awfully hard to prove any serious harm from publishing the DNC emails - and also the standard for publishers protected in that case is much higher. Keep in mind all that is proved that he did is publish them (no different than tons of other news outlets).
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    My point isn't that there's no useful content in the cables; my opinion is that it wasn't screened well. The data was dumped, not carefully screened. Assange M.O. changed in that regard, somewhere in the past 10 years, and that is the moment where I started to believe his opponents had a point. > In the case of the DNC email leaks, I could see a better argument that it was political, but then it also wouldn’t matter. None of the Espionage Act charges or accusations of putting US agents in grave harm are based on leaked DNC emails, only Iraq War leaks and the diplomatic cables. It would be awfully hard to prove any serious harm from publishing the DNC emails - and also the standard for publishers protected in that case is much higher. Keep in mind all that is proved that he did is publish them (no different than tons of other news outlets). It pretty much affected the outcome of the election up to the point that we USA got an orangutan in office. It is something Russian troll farms and Cambridge Analytica were also trying to do. All three's actions affect our democratic process in a negative way (ie. we want stability not chaos right before an election). Is it basis to get him prosecuted via Espionage Act? No, but that Act is retarded either way; lets look at other laws instead. How about illegal access to a remote computer? Then we're getting to more fair waters. Another one is putting innocent lives in danger by leaking sensitive data.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      By every account in the extradition hearing, Assange was obsessed with carefully screening the material and copiously considered the costs and moral imperatives in cases when an identifying piece of information had to be included. The testimony of John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count (which deeply depended on Wikileaks materials to corroborate many illegal civilian deaths in the Iraq war) is particularly clear on this. He had direct knowledge of the processes Assange used, in conjunction with other major news agencies including the New York Times and The Guardian, to redact as much identifiable information as possible, and even revealed significant details about the software they built to do named entity removal and to extract entries from dictionaries and so forth, across tens of thousands of documents. It is pure myth that Assange lacked careful, discerning effort to redact materials. As for your response about the DNC emails I think you have it quite backwards. Assange did not destabilize any election or play any role in Trump being elected. The DNC did that by the behavior that the leaked emails revealed. The DNC members destabilized the election and created uncertainty and outrage that Trump capitalized on. The DNC members and officials did that, not Assange. Assange reported it.
- dencodev 6y ago
  You don't think it's in the public's interest to know that one of the two parties of our broken two party system is explicitly subverting a democratic process to get "their person" nominated? Given that getting nominated to one of the two parties is the only viable way to get elected, anything that compromises the integrity of the nomination process is frankly more important than the final voting process. >why he went in bed with the Russians This is unsubstantiated propaganda.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Motivation is not relevant, results are.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  I fail to see how being political is a relevant distinction, it fundamentally just means that something is contested. Not necessarily that there is any good reason for it to be contested. Utterly horrific things can be accepted and 'not political' and the only sane approach contested and declared 'political'.
crest 6y ago
State terror shouldn’t be safe. It‘s perpetrators deserve far more than just public exposure of crimes. For all I care post their names, photos and real time position data online. Let them hope for imprisonment in a state that observes their human rights.

Fnoord 6y ago

The problem I have with him is that his massive leaks were politically motivated. The helicopter who shot journalists, that movie was genuine, and a proper leak. All the diplomatic cables being leaked? Clinton's e-mails? I don't believe all of that was in the public interest. He fell in the trap of making it political, us vs them (why he went in bed with the Russians), and disregarding operational safety.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
I don’t see any basis it could be disputed in the case of the diplomatic cables. This very witness’s testimony proves it (as his torture and subsequent efforts by the US to pressure Germany and Spain to take no action when the criminal nature of it was learned - it was only brought to light because of the leaked cables, as explained in this post). These facts render it moot what you or I might personally think about his political motivations. Not only are such speculations not a basis for any of the charges, but the very evidence itself (the cables) requires us to see the humanitarian imperative that they be leaked and thus to view leakers and publishers as whistleblowers, setting all speculated internal motives we can’t prove (and which don’t supersede the moral imperative here) aside. In the case of the DNC email leaks, I could see a better argument that it was political, but then it also wouldn’t matter. None of the Espionage Act charges or accusations of putting US agents in grave harm are based on leaked DNC emails, only Iraq War leaks and the diplomatic cables. It would be awfully hard to prove any serious harm from publishing the DNC emails - and also the standard for publishers protected in that case is much higher. Keep in mind all that is proved that he did is publish them (no different than tons of other news outlets).
- Fnoord 6y ago
  My point isn't that there's no useful content in the cables; my opinion is that it wasn't screened well. The data was dumped, not carefully screened. Assange M.O. changed in that regard, somewhere in the past 10 years, and that is the moment where I started to believe his opponents had a point. > In the case of the DNC email leaks, I could see a better argument that it was political, but then it also wouldn’t matter. None of the Espionage Act charges or accusations of putting US agents in grave harm are based on leaked DNC emails, only Iraq War leaks and the diplomatic cables. It would be awfully hard to prove any serious harm from publishing the DNC emails - and also the standard for publishers protected in that case is much higher. Keep in mind all that is proved that he did is publish them (no different than tons of other news outlets). It pretty much affected the outcome of the election up to the point that we USA got an orangutan in office. It is something Russian troll farms and Cambridge Analytica were also trying to do. All three's actions affect our democratic process in a negative way (ie. we want stability not chaos right before an election). Is it basis to get him prosecuted via Espionage Act? No, but that Act is retarded either way; lets look at other laws instead. How about illegal access to a remote computer? Then we're getting to more fair waters. Another one is putting innocent lives in danger by leaking sensitive data.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    By every account in the extradition hearing, Assange was obsessed with carefully screening the material and copiously considered the costs and moral imperatives in cases when an identifying piece of information had to be included. The testimony of John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count (which deeply depended on Wikileaks materials to corroborate many illegal civilian deaths in the Iraq war) is particularly clear on this. He had direct knowledge of the processes Assange used, in conjunction with other major news agencies including the New York Times and The Guardian, to redact as much identifiable information as possible, and even revealed significant details about the software they built to do named entity removal and to extract entries from dictionaries and so forth, across tens of thousands of documents. It is pure myth that Assange lacked careful, discerning effort to redact materials. As for your response about the DNC emails I think you have it quite backwards. Assange did not destabilize any election or play any role in Trump being elected. The DNC did that by the behavior that the leaked emails revealed. The DNC members destabilized the election and created uncertainty and outrage that Trump capitalized on. The DNC members and officials did that, not Assange. Assange reported it.
dencodev 6y ago
You don't think it's in the public's interest to know that one of the two parties of our broken two party system is explicitly subverting a democratic process to get "their person" nominated? Given that getting nominated to one of the two parties is the only viable way to get elected, anything that compromises the integrity of the nomination process is frankly more important than the final voting process. >why he went in bed with the Russians This is unsubstantiated propaganda.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Motivation is not relevant, results are.
Nasrudith 6y ago
I fail to see how being political is a relevant distinction, it fundamentally just means that something is contested. Not necessarily that there is any good reason for it to be contested. Utterly horrific things can be accepted and 'not political' and the only sane approach contested and declared 'political'.

crest 6y ago

State terror shouldn’t be safe. It‘s perpetrators deserve far more than just public exposure of crimes. For all I care post their names, photos and real time position data online. Let them hope for imprisonment in a state that observes their human rights.