5 ms·
Without making any judgment on the merits of the Assange case and the proceedings, one fact has become increasingly clear to me. Assange has tried to play polit
by bitexploder 6y ago
Without making any judgment on the merits of the Assange case and the proceedings, one fact has become increasingly clear to me. Assange has tried to play politics and has been burned. He had a very clear bias in what he leaked and the political systems are now flexing their might to make an example of him. I disagree with this process, it does not feel like any sort of "justice". I also strongly disagree with Assange's politics and how he aimed to manipulate the American political system with the help of powerful enemy states. Ultimately, he dabbled in state secrets and was a willing puppet for Russia and other states. Regardless of the fairness of it, he had to imagine he was playing with fire and may get burned. You simply don't delve into promoting one a political agenda, publicly, with the help of an enemy state and not expect some sort of blowback.
- yohannparis 6y agoEven if you play with a foreign power, does that means they should throw out of the windows their laws and due process? This trial puts the U.S.A. and U.K. in a bad light. Government plays with fire to gather intelligence every day. But if they are caught by journalism, they will use their political power to muffle it. Seems obvious but unfair. If you cannot question the activities of your government, therefore it is your government?
- unreal37 6y agoThe answer is "of course, of course." If you convince an American military person to hack into a computer system and leak you files, and conspire with the Russians to release other hacked files to make the American military and political class look bad, you'll be having a bad decade or two. Of course.
- sixQuarks 6y agoWhat is the proof that he “convinced” someone to hack into the military?
- NovemberWhiskey 6y agoI don't want to be glib here, but that would be the subject matter of his trial if/when he finally does get to the US. An extradition hearing is not, and has never been, the place where questions of innocence or guilt are decided.
- cassepipe 6y agoOf course. Of course if you are the wife of a violent man that regularly beats you up and you refuse to prepare dinner tonight, you know you're probably gonna have a bad evening. Of course you are seeing the point I am making here. Of course.
- alasdair_ 6y ago> If you convince an American military person to hack into a computer system and leak you files Manning contacted Assange with files. Assange didn’t need to “convince” her.
- IndySun 6y agoInteresting but as yet unfounded summary. But you are comfortable with the concept of "state secrets"; as long as they're in your favor?
- bitexploder 6y agoI generally think state secrets have grown to encompass far too much. I don't care whose favor they in, I think we classify far too much and it concentrates power and takes it away from the people.
- cassepipe 6y agoYet another comment saying Assange got what was coming. Always the same argument : He knew so he should not have. Imagine applying the same logic elsewhere : "Well people went on that strike but they knew that state/company would send the army and shoot at them so they got what was coming" I could make up a thousand more like that. This is a terrible justification of the order of things.
- bitexploder 6y agoI am not justifying anything. I explicitly said I don't think it resembles any sort of "justice", but I also think that you should understand the risks you are undertaking by thumbing your nose at the political power structures so directly. It does not exist on that dimension of judgment for me. It's like going into space. If your rocket explodes and kills you, you don't deserve it any more than anyone else, but you understand that is a risk. It doesn't make it right or wrong, it is just a force that exists and will try to kill you.
- cassepipe 6y agoYou are just naturalising Power at that point. Power is not some natural force although it tries to acquire its regularity and omniprésence. And although it tries to protect itself from human variability, it relies on human actions. Naturalising is the oldest known way of justifying an order of things. I am ready to believe this is not your intention but that does not mean that's not what you are doing. Still it leaves me with a question : What is your intention beyond stating that "After sun comes rain" or "Boys will be boys"? How do you contribute to the discussion from the outer space point of view from where all seem to look as the result of unavoidable forces?
- cassepipe 6y agoIn the meantime western powers can fiddle with elections or support cruel dictators in the rest of the world without ever encountering the tenth of the level of indignation Assange rose against himself for leaking Clinton's (genuine, not disinformation) emails.
- bitexploder 6y agoI don't think it's fair, but this case is just a symptom of a much larger problem. In the current universe, you just understand it is an inherent risk if you are going to play in this space. Russians outright poison and murder people like Assange that go against the state. Isn't right, but a lot of things aren't right or fair in this world.
- cassepipe 6y agoI don't think JA is as naive as to believe that he was going to get a free pass for organising whistleblowing. I think he also knows the fate of Russian real journalists. The cold war has ended but we still get the same justification that what is happening in Russia is worse. It is both true and irrelevant. You can justify litterally anything saying that it's worse elsewhere. It is the most common argument raised in favor of accepting the current state of "democracy". I think it deserves a name at that point. Let's call it the North Korea argument. A strong defense against authoritarianism is not another strong state, it is a well fed, well informed, educated people whose rights are enforced by independent institutions.
- 6y ago
- hamilyon2 6y agoThis is quite interesting way to frame that. To imply that Assange is willingly and knowingly crossed path of the most powerful entity in the world is to imply that he is extraordinary principled, brave. Julian Assange does not seem that brave to me. Or the circumstances were not right for him to show that exceptional bravery. I think rather he thought that what he is doing is lawful and protected activity. Nobody acting in good faith should be punished more than for honest mistake. This is what happening here. Journalist is being punished for literally doing his job. In good faith. All while residing in countries where rule of law is declared, not in Turkey or Russia.