5 ms·

Julian Assange is not on trial for his personality

52 points by k1m 6y ago

k1m 6y ago
Good point by Noam Chomsky and Alice Walker: > You've probably heard the refrain from well-meaning pundits: “You don't have to like him, but you should oppose threats to silence him.” But that refrain misses the point by reinforcing the manipulative tropes deployed against Assange. > When setting a gravely dangerous precedent, governments don't typically persecute the most beloved individuals in the world. They target those who can be portrayed as subversive, unpatriotic – or simply weird. Then they actively distort public debate by emphasizing those traits.
morceauxdebois 6y ago
I heard he didn't even cry at his mother's funeral.
- tell5436667 6y ago
  Is it mandatory? Mothers can be abusive.
- grugagag 6y ago
  Different people express their emotions in different ways. Im sorry for you that you expect people to behave in a typical way. Maybe he does cry in private, maybe he is on antidepressants and can't get himself to cry, it's his business how he expresses his emotions nonetheless and it should be our last concern here. What should be a concern is his trial and whistle-blowers in general. Whistle-blowers are now reluctant to expose wrong doings because they are prosecuted and hounded even if they meant good. With Assange it’s more complicated but why is he on a trial in the UK? Also leaks that prove horrible things show the world how thuggish our leaders and influential people are and yet nothing happens to them, they're not even ashamed when caught red-handed. Panama papers? Nobody got indicted! Why do we care care about punishing Assange while leaving the real criminals free? The ones who steal our children’s futures? I expect nobody reading this is a thuggish politician whose future progeny may actually benefit from their begavior
  - morceauxdebois 6y ago
    It seems like people did not get my reference to the Stranger.
- scotty79 6y ago
  Do you seriously believe that or that it matters? Or are you just giving an example of ridiculous statement one might use against his opponent to vilify him in attempted character assassination?
  - 0xdeadb00f 6y ago
    I thought the comment was pretty clearly sarcasm. The author says it's a reference to something.
iaw 6y ago
Litvinenko was when I realized that nation states only play by rules when it suits them and break them when they can get away with it. Putin can get away with murdering individuals or invading Crimea without any major repercussions. The US and Europe can extradite and jail spymasters (if the independent can assert Assange was a journalist I can assert he's a spymaster). I don't find this situation to be black and white, I personally want Assange extradited and brought to trial. I'm sorry that Chelsea isn't cooperating. Realpolitik: He played a game that regular people shouldn't participate in and after a decade he's experiencing the repercussions. If his releases had been more even-handed towards Russia or he had not tried so hard to damage Hilary Clinton I may think he was some goodhearted neutral observer that just wants the truth out there, but it looks to me like he wanted to leverage the information he had to achieve desired outcomes (just as a spymaster at a nationstate agency would).
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  Should any of that matter if the information he released is the truth?
  - jklm 6y ago
    Let’s say Russia releases the names and pictures of 100 active CIA agents who they uncovered as having done their country harm but are now active in other countries and out of their reach. It’s the truth, now what are your thoughts?
    - dragonsngoblins 6y ago
      I.... I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would have a moral problem with that? It isn't even 100 active CIA agents who have nothing to do with Russia, apparently these agents actively damaged them.
      - jklm 6y ago
        For agents in the wrong country at the time of the announcement, it may just condemn them to torture or death.
Barrin92 6y ago
I agree with half of it. Criticizing Assange for his hygiene or bringing into focus Manning's gender identity are obviously attempts at character assassination as the article points out but: >for calling Hillary Clinton a war hawk his political affiliations and motivates as well as intent matter. The public has a legitimate interest to figure out if whistleblowers act on behalf of foreign powers, cooperate with domestic political parties or are in some other way potentially influenced. It can determine what they decide to leak, who they aim to attack, and so on. If it turns out that someone who leaks documents that concern national security has ties to a foreign power the situation becomes immediately much more suspect and it becomes much more likely that leaks are chosen in such a way as to deflect or confuse.
- viztor 6y ago
  Anyone who leaks national security will of course in the end of the day have links to or formed such with foreign powers, otherwise, they won't be able to sustain themselves in the most fundamental way possible.
- sthnblllII 6y ago
  If Russia or China exposes some crime that my government hid from me I will thank those governments and act to remove the corrupt officials from my own government. You are implicitly arguing Americans should allow corrupt government officials be above the law.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    no, what I'm arguing is that you may not know if you get selective information, potentially taken out of context, to advocate some cause that's actually harming the national interest. Pretty trivial example, create a leak or scandal about a relatively minor issue that discredits a candidate that would have threatened the interests of China or Russia.
    - mariusor 6y ago
      > what I'm arguing is that you may not know if you get selective information, potentially taken out of context, to advocate some cause that's actually harming the national interest. Of course you can know: you _always_ get out of context, selective information. But the thing to do for a good faith government when this happens is to provide context, not to silence the people that provided the information.

52 points by k1m 6y ago

k1m 6y ago

Good point by Noam Chomsky and Alice Walker: > You've probably heard the refrain from well-meaning pundits: “You don't have to like him, but you should oppose threats to silence him.” But that refrain misses the point by reinforcing the manipulative tropes deployed against Assange. > When setting a gravely dangerous precedent, governments don't typically persecute the most beloved individuals in the world. They target those who can be portrayed as subversive, unpatriotic – or simply weird. Then they actively distort public debate by emphasizing those traits.

morceauxdebois 6y ago

I heard he didn't even cry at his mother's funeral.

tell5436667 6y ago
Is it mandatory? Mothers can be abusive.
grugagag 6y ago
Different people express their emotions in different ways. Im sorry for you that you expect people to behave in a typical way. Maybe he does cry in private, maybe he is on antidepressants and can't get himself to cry, it's his business how he expresses his emotions nonetheless and it should be our last concern here. What should be a concern is his trial and whistle-blowers in general. Whistle-blowers are now reluctant to expose wrong doings because they are prosecuted and hounded even if they meant good. With Assange it’s more complicated but why is he on a trial in the UK? Also leaks that prove horrible things show the world how thuggish our leaders and influential people are and yet nothing happens to them, they're not even ashamed when caught red-handed. Panama papers? Nobody got indicted! Why do we care care about punishing Assange while leaving the real criminals free? The ones who steal our children’s futures? I expect nobody reading this is a thuggish politician whose future progeny may actually benefit from their begavior
- morceauxdebois 6y ago
  It seems like people did not get my reference to the Stranger.
scotty79 6y ago
Do you seriously believe that or that it matters? Or are you just giving an example of ridiculous statement one might use against his opponent to vilify him in attempted character assassination?
- 0xdeadb00f 6y ago
  I thought the comment was pretty clearly sarcasm. The author says it's a reference to something.

iaw 6y ago

Litvinenko was when I realized that nation states only play by rules when it suits them and break them when they can get away with it. Putin can get away with murdering individuals or invading Crimea without any major repercussions. The US and Europe can extradite and jail spymasters (if the independent can assert Assange was a journalist I can assert he's a spymaster). I don't find this situation to be black and white, I personally want Assange extradited and brought to trial. I'm sorry that Chelsea isn't cooperating. Realpolitik: He played a game that regular people shouldn't participate in and after a decade he's experiencing the repercussions. If his releases had been more even-handed towards Russia or he had not tried so hard to damage Hilary Clinton I may think he was some goodhearted neutral observer that just wants the truth out there, but it looks to me like he wanted to leverage the information he had to achieve desired outcomes (just as a spymaster at a nationstate agency would).

throwawaysea 6y ago
Should any of that matter if the information he released is the truth?
- jklm 6y ago
  Let’s say Russia releases the names and pictures of 100 active CIA agents who they uncovered as having done their country harm but are now active in other countries and out of their reach. It’s the truth, now what are your thoughts?
  - dragonsngoblins 6y ago
    I.... I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would have a moral problem with that? It isn't even 100 active CIA agents who have nothing to do with Russia, apparently these agents actively damaged them.
    - jklm 6y ago
      For agents in the wrong country at the time of the announcement, it may just condemn them to torture or death.

Barrin92 6y ago

I agree with half of it. Criticizing Assange for his hygiene or bringing into focus Manning's gender identity are obviously attempts at character assassination as the article points out but: >for calling Hillary Clinton a war hawk his political affiliations and motivates as well as intent matter. The public has a legitimate interest to figure out if whistleblowers act on behalf of foreign powers, cooperate with domestic political parties or are in some other way potentially influenced. It can determine what they decide to leak, who they aim to attack, and so on. If it turns out that someone who leaks documents that concern national security has ties to a foreign power the situation becomes immediately much more suspect and it becomes much more likely that leaks are chosen in such a way as to deflect or confuse.

viztor 6y ago
Anyone who leaks national security will of course in the end of the day have links to or formed such with foreign powers, otherwise, they won't be able to sustain themselves in the most fundamental way possible.
sthnblllII 6y ago
If Russia or China exposes some crime that my government hid from me I will thank those governments and act to remove the corrupt officials from my own government. You are implicitly arguing Americans should allow corrupt government officials be above the law.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  no, what I'm arguing is that you may not know if you get selective information, potentially taken out of context, to advocate some cause that's actually harming the national interest. Pretty trivial example, create a leak or scandal about a relatively minor issue that discredits a candidate that would have threatened the interests of China or Russia.
  - mariusor 6y ago
    > what I'm arguing is that you may not know if you get selective information, potentially taken out of context, to advocate some cause that's actually harming the national interest. Of course you can know: you _always_ get out of context, selective information. But the thing to do for a good faith government when this happens is to provide context, not to silence the people that provided the information.