3 ms·

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 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.

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.