4 ms·

I do not have a good opinion of Julian Assange or of Wikileaks, and I am not afraid to say it. At best it has been an unwitting tool of Russian disinformation c

I do not have a good opinion of Julian Assange or of Wikileaks, and I am not afraid to say it. At best it has been an unwitting tool of Russian disinformation campaigns; just as likely it is complicit. One must also wonder why Assange spends so much time talking to folks like Sean Hannity, Dana Rohrbacher, and Charles C. Johnson. https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/19/wherein-wikileaks-brags-about-entertaining-a-pardon-dangle-from-a-suspected-russian-asset-and-a-white-supremacist/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/19/wherein-wikileaks-brag...

indigo945 6y ago
No matter what anyone's opinion on Assange is, it is clear that he still deserves a fair trial. And given the public's lack of access to the proceedings, as well as Nils Melzer's testimony, it is clear that that isn't what he is getting.
- nsajko 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24544590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24544590
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  Yes, well my opinions on Assange are independent of my opinion of the trial.
  - calcifer 6y ago
    Curiously enough, people in your position rarely feel the need to share their supposedly different opinions of the trial.
    - jonnycomputer 6y ago
      I don't have an opinion about the conduct of trial because I haven't been following the trial. If you asked me about whether I think Assange should be extradited to the US, the answer is no, I do not.
woah 6y ago
You only think that journalists you agree with politically should be able to have free speech and practice journalism?
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  Non-sequitur. It is a non-sequitur because I was not expressing an opinion of the trial but of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. My post was a response to the parent post which expressed angst that no-one was supporting Julian Assange and Wikileaks; and I was stating my opinion about Assange's actions. I knew full well that a whole bunch of fanboys would start downvoting the hell out of me, or posting irrelevant responses, like your own. Because that's what they do.
  - andrewprock 6y ago
    > Non-sequitur. It is a non-sequitur because I was not expressing an opinion of the trial but of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. My post was a response to the parent post which expressed angst that no-one was supporting Julian Assange and Wikileaks; and I was stating my opinion about Assange's actions. I knew full well that a whole bunch of fanboys would start downvoting the hell out of me, or posting irrelevant responses, like your own. Because that's what they do. Since the article is about trial monitoring, it seems that your views about WikiLeaks may be the larger non sequitur.
    - jonnycomputer 6y ago
      I was posting a reply to a comment complaining about the lack of support for Assange on this list. here is a link to the comment I replied to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24543604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24543604 "I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did ..."
andy_ppp 6y ago
Is the US allowed to extradite journalists? Yes or no. That’s what this case tests and I personally think Julian Assange does not matter so much, he’s just a vehicle to scare people.
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  Is the US allowed to extradite journalists? Apparently yes. Do I think they should be? No, I do not. Now, can you just take what I posted at face value instead of assuming a whole bunch of other opinions you think I hold?
- kmonsen 6y ago
  I am not sure how extradition requests should be allowed based on profession? It depends on which laws the break, and international treaties?
- tremon 6y ago
  Is the US allowed to extradite journalists? Yes or no. Yes. There is no process, other than the United States government's own procedures, that prevents the US from extraditing any of its citizens, journalists or otherwise, to other governments.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    I mean, there's that whole "hague invasion act". We've said that we'll go so far as to invade the EU if the ICC charges an American with war crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... Probably won't apply to journalists, but there are absolutely limits to American reciprocity in these areas.
xienze 6y ago
> At best it has been an unwitting tool of Russian disinformation campaigns; just as likely it is complicit. Aaaand there’s your reason, grandparent poster. Once the media started floating out rumors of WikiLeaks helping Orange Man, he lost all his fans on the left.
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  Read the Mueller report.
FpUser 6y ago
>"At best it has been an unwitting tool of Russian disinformation campaigns; just as likely it is complicit" Care to show the example of disinformation disseminated by Assange?
- FpUser 6y ago
  I thought you won't
rebuilder 6y ago
What is the relevance here?
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
This is a completely baseless claim, and it is directly contradicted by testimony in Assange’s extradition hearing. For example, John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count testified both to the crucial role Wikileaks diplomatic cables played in corroborating many illegal civilian deaths in the Iraq War, and also the huge degree of care and effort Assange and Wikileaks put into carefully redacting identifying information and weighing the moral balance of information that was too important to be fully redacted. If your comments on Russian disinformation are about the DNC leaked emails, then you’ve unfortunately got it backwards. Assange and Wikileaks didn’t assist or engender Russian disinformation, rather the DNC members whose behavior was revealed by the emails did that. The DNC did that via their behavior. Assange reported it.
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  "DNC leaked emails" Leaked? Hacked. DNC hacked emails, hacked by Russia, disseminated by Assange, who put it out that Seth Rich was the source instead of a GRU operative. That's not whistle-blowing, thats tradecraft. And there you go ignoring the proposed quid-pro-quo. Read the Mueller report.
  - thefucnjosh 6y ago
    I thought Assange never said who the source was. upi.com/Top_News/US/2020/09/18/Assange-lawyer-Trump-offered-pardon-to-reveal-DNC-hack-source/3921600445120/

indigo945 6y ago

No matter what anyone's opinion on Assange is, it is clear that he still deserves a fair trial. And given the public's lack of access to the proceedings, as well as Nils Melzer's testimony, it is clear that that isn't what he is getting.

nsajko 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24544590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24544590
jonnycomputer 6y ago
Yes, well my opinions on Assange are independent of my opinion of the trial.
- calcifer 6y ago
  Curiously enough, people in your position rarely feel the need to share their supposedly different opinions of the trial.
  - jonnycomputer 6y ago
    I don't have an opinion about the conduct of trial because I haven't been following the trial. If you asked me about whether I think Assange should be extradited to the US, the answer is no, I do not.

woah 6y ago

You only think that journalists you agree with politically should be able to have free speech and practice journalism?

jonnycomputer 6y ago
Non-sequitur. It is a non-sequitur because I was not expressing an opinion of the trial but of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. My post was a response to the parent post which expressed angst that no-one was supporting Julian Assange and Wikileaks; and I was stating my opinion about Assange's actions. I knew full well that a whole bunch of fanboys would start downvoting the hell out of me, or posting irrelevant responses, like your own. Because that's what they do.
- andrewprock 6y ago
  > Non-sequitur. It is a non-sequitur because I was not expressing an opinion of the trial but of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. My post was a response to the parent post which expressed angst that no-one was supporting Julian Assange and Wikileaks; and I was stating my opinion about Assange's actions. I knew full well that a whole bunch of fanboys would start downvoting the hell out of me, or posting irrelevant responses, like your own. Because that's what they do. Since the article is about trial monitoring, it seems that your views about WikiLeaks may be the larger non sequitur.
  - jonnycomputer 6y ago
    I was posting a reply to a comment complaining about the lack of support for Assange on this list. here is a link to the comment I replied to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24543604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24543604 "I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did ..."

andy_ppp 6y ago

Is the US allowed to extradite journalists? Yes or no. That’s what this case tests and I personally think Julian Assange does not matter so much, he’s just a vehicle to scare people.

jonnycomputer 6y ago
Is the US allowed to extradite journalists? Apparently yes. Do I think they should be? No, I do not. Now, can you just take what I posted at face value instead of assuming a whole bunch of other opinions you think I hold?
kmonsen 6y ago
I am not sure how extradition requests should be allowed based on profession? It depends on which laws the break, and international treaties?
tremon 6y ago
Is the US allowed to extradite journalists? Yes or no. Yes. There is no process, other than the United States government's own procedures, that prevents the US from extraditing any of its citizens, journalists or otherwise, to other governments.
- monocasa 6y ago
  I mean, there's that whole "hague invasion act". We've said that we'll go so far as to invade the EU if the ICC charges an American with war crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... Probably won't apply to journalists, but there are absolutely limits to American reciprocity in these areas.

xienze 6y ago

> At best it has been an unwitting tool of Russian disinformation campaigns; just as likely it is complicit. Aaaand there’s your reason, grandparent poster. Once the media started floating out rumors of WikiLeaks helping Orange Man, he lost all his fans on the left.

jonnycomputer 6y ago
Read the Mueller report.

FpUser 6y ago

>"At best it has been an unwitting tool of Russian disinformation campaigns; just as likely it is complicit" Care to show the example of disinformation disseminated by Assange?

FpUser 6y ago
I thought you won't

rebuilder 6y ago

What is the relevance here?

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

This is a completely baseless claim, and it is directly contradicted by testimony in Assange’s extradition hearing. For example, John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count testified both to the crucial role Wikileaks diplomatic cables played in corroborating many illegal civilian deaths in the Iraq War, and also the huge degree of care and effort Assange and Wikileaks put into carefully redacting identifying information and weighing the moral balance of information that was too important to be fully redacted. If your comments on Russian disinformation are about the DNC leaked emails, then you’ve unfortunately got it backwards. Assange and Wikileaks didn’t assist or engender Russian disinformation, rather the DNC members whose behavior was revealed by the emails did that. The DNC did that via their behavior. Assange reported it.

jonnycomputer 6y ago
"DNC leaked emails" Leaked? Hacked. DNC hacked emails, hacked by Russia, disseminated by Assange, who put it out that Seth Rich was the source instead of a GRU operative. That's not whistle-blowing, thats tradecraft. And there you go ignoring the proposed quid-pro-quo. Read the Mueller report.
- thefucnjosh 6y ago
  I thought Assange never said who the source was. upi.com/Top_News/US/2020/09/18/Assange-lawyer-Trump-offered-pardon-to-reveal-DNC-hack-source/3921600445120/