12 ms·

I take issue with the notion that "only principled people side with Assange". Based on my following of his saga, I still have a lot of questions about how deepl

I take issue with the notion that "only principled people side with Assange". Based on my following of his saga, I still have a lot of questions about how deeply Assange was truly involved. I feel he removed some of his legal protection by being so actively involved in hunting for government secrets. He wasn't just a neutral clearing house in my opinion, but an active agitator sticking his thumb in the eye of nation states. The question of whether he is a journalist is irrelevant to me. What I do see is that he was a highly partisan actor involved in the affairs of nation states. His behavior around the 2016 election further moved him in the direction of willing accomplice to election interference. His selective publication of data also makes me highly suspicious of his behavior. It all had a very clear slant and focus around the election. He even supposedly solicited information from Russian intelligence agents at one point. Maybe somewhere in all of Assange's partisan hackery, I can see an argument that he didn't actually do anything wrong. And, since he is very polarizing, you would have to stick to strong principles to still support him and what his legal plight represents. However, I don't think you could engineer a less sympathetic character to carry the banner of freedom of speech/press, which is honestly his biggest problem. No one cares about another partisan hack going by the wayside of a potentially corrupt prosecution. "You get what you deserve". I don't believe that, because I think the actual case against him has merit. In reality, the accusation, which I believe is credible, is that he was an active conspirator in an effort to steal state secrets, and not just a mild mannered clearing house that published what it got through highly clean and legal means. He broke his own operational "security" code of staying above the fray by being such an active participant in the acquisition of state secrets. The manning case in particular is an area where I believe he crossed the line and was actively assisting and encouraging Manning. He has a hard time telling the truth and based on the facts is morally and ethically bankrupt. People like Glenn Greenwald managed to handle things like Snowden much more cleanly and without the obvious bias and legal/ethical concerns of an Assange figure.

k1m 6y ago
> I don't think you could engineer a less sympathetic character to carry the banner of freedom of speech/press Assange being an unsympathetic figure is largely a result of the fierce media campaign to paint him as one. Most of us have never met him, have only read about him in hostile media. Noam Chomsky and Alice Walker made the point well, I think: > 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. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/julian-assange-trial-us-trump-chelsea-manning-chomsky-walker-b420930.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/julian-assange-trial-us... You write: > The manning case in particular is an area where I believe he crossed the line and was actively assisting and encouraging Manning. Have you read the testimony of experts about this? See for example Eric Lewis, a practising US attorney and former law professor: > [Prosectuor] James Lewis QC: Do you accept that a government insider who leaks classified information may be prosecuted? > Eric Lewis: Yes. > James Lewis QC: Do you accept that a journalist may not aid such a person to break the law? > Eric Lewis: No. It is normal journalistic practice to cultivate an official source and encourage them to leak. Seymour Hersh would have to be prosecuted under such an idea. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-10/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-... Here's investigative journalist Nicky Hager: > [Prosecutor] Lewis: You have as a journalist merely been the passive recipient of official information. Presumably you have never done anything criminal to obtain government information? > Hager: You said “passive”. That is not the way we work. Journalists not only actively work our sources. We go out and find our sources. The information might come in documents. It might come on a memory stick. In most cases our sources are breaking the law. Our duty is to help protect them from being caught. We actively help them cover their backs sometimes. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-13/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
- bitexploder 6y ago
  In the instance of the Manning probes and cases I can accept that he is filling the role of a journalist, he just isn't a very good one that failed to protect his sources. I can mostly accept up to the 2016 elections that he was relatively clean of any real ethical violations / legal trouble despite what journalists and the govt might say. Around the 2016 Guccifer and DNC leaks I don't accept he was acting as a mere journalist. He was, at best, and I think this strains intellectual credulity, an unwitting Russian asset. In reality, he was likely a willing Russian asset based on the evidence. It walks and quacks like a duck based on its behavior. If he wasn't an active and willing Russian asset I would be surprised. He played a key role in the DNC hack. Here he may, possibly, be ethically clean, but his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party. I don't see how anyone can support that sort of behavior. There isn't enough evidence in the public sphere to convict him of crimes, so I think that is a miscarriage of justice and the legal system, but the continued white knighting of Assange in technocratic circles continues to amuse me.
  - k1m 6y ago
    > He was, at best, and I think this strains intellectual credulity, an unwitting Russian asset. In reality, he was likely a willing Russian asset based on the evidence. Based on what evidence? Assange stated that "our source is not the Russian government or any state party." So I'm curious what evidence you've seen to say it was. > ...his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party. I assume by this you mean he was trying to help Trump. Again, I don't see any evidence for this. See for example this article by Caitlin Johnstone which outlines why this isn't plausible: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-18-he-was-a-trump-supporter-92db307784d7 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-18-he-was-a... She writes: > In July 2016 Assange compared the choice between Clinton and Trump to a choice between cholera and gonorrhea, saying, “Personally, I would prefer neither.” When a Twitter user suggested to Assange in 2017 that he start sucking up to Trump in order to secure a pardon, Assange replied, “I’d rather eat my own intestines.” Not to mention of course that it's now the Trump administration that's pursuing him and trying to send him to a US prison.
nickysielicki 6y ago
> I feel he removed some of his legal protection by being so actively involved in hunting for government secrets. > I don't believe that, because I think the actual case against him has merit. > He broke his own operational "security" code of staying above the fray by being such an active participant in the acquisition of state secrets. The manning case in particular is an area where I believe he crossed the line and was actively assisting and encouraging Manning. Enough with the hand waving. This is a technical forum where you're writing for people who are familiar with things like NTLM and hashing. Let's talk facts. Assange is being charged due to the following instant message conversation. > Manning: any good at lm hash cracking? > Assange: yes > Assange: <continuing conversation, goes off on a short tangent about wikileaks funding> > Assange: we have rainbow tables for lm. > Manning: 80c11049faebf441d524fb3c4cd5351c > Manning: I think it's lm + lmnt > Manning: anyway... > Manning: need sleep :yawn: > Manning: not even sure if that's the hash... I had to hexdump a SAM file, since I don't have the system file... > Assange: what makes you think it's lm? > Assange: its from a SAM? > Manning: yeah > Assange: passed it onto our lm guy > Manning: thx Then, 2 days later after a long discussion about wikileaks and intelligence agencies and other leaks. > Assange: any more hints about this lm hash? > Assange: no luck so far And that's the end of it. Whole conversation here: https://emma.best/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2010-03-05-to-2010-03-18-CM-JA-log.pdf https://emma.best/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2010-03-05-to-2... Is this a CFAA violation? No hashes were cracked. No additional access was had. He maybe put in a half-hearted attempt to crack a hash. To me, this is not being "actively involved" in "hunting for government secrets." edit: I think it speaks volumes that this is the best thing they can find to stick him with.
- Drip33 6y ago
  > Is this a CFAA violation? No hashes were cracked Cracking hashes alone is not a crime or I'd be in jail.
  - bb88 6y ago
    Sure, but what was the intent? Did you crack a hash as some part of a computer contest? Or were you helping someone crack the hash with the intent to get access to a US DoD government computer? The way the law is apparently written, the first is not illegal. The second would be conspiracy.
llamaz 6y ago
Democracy requires informed consent, and an education on the facts. A truly free people are trusted with the facts, and it is the ethical duty of journalists to provide this education, and as such Assange has acted to the highest ethical standards. I don't claim there is some higher power (e.g. the direction of history, science) from where democracy as a societal telos (i.e. end goal) gains its legitimacy. I just think most people desire democracy as a telos for society, and this collective desire is a basis for ethics. The version of ethics according to which Assange is unethical is a jurdical view of ethics, where the laws created by the state are taken to be the laws of ethics. But the moment you accept that this juridical ethics is a transcendent source of objective truth, you've taken an extremely one sided partisan political position i.e. that of the elites, who wrote the laws, and created the laws of ethics that reinforce the status quo.
coldtea 6y ago
>I don't think you could engineer a less sympathetic character to carry the banner of freedom of speech/press Of course you could. Any journalist that participated in the years-long character assassination to make Assange appear "less sympathetic" is a less sympathetic character themselves...
- charwalker 6y ago
  If I'm improperly accused of sexual assault (totally innocent) I'll hear that case out instead of hiding in my man cave at a foreign embassy while still making contact with questionable foreign intelligence figures.
  - jwalton 6y ago
    Ok, but what if you get accused of sexual assault, and you know that if you go into custody in that foreign country, you'll probably never go to trial, because you'll immediately be extradited to the US for trumped up espionage charges and face the death penalty? You still going to go hear that case out?
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >I'll hear that case out instead of hiding in my man cave at a foreign embassy You'd only do that if you were stupid enough to not already understand that the accusation was setup, with a little US pressure into an anyways willing subordinate government (Sweden), to get you to a circus trial and then extradition. Fortunately Assange was not that naive.
  - jules 6y ago
    What you fail to realize is that for Assange, it would be a better outcome to go to trial and be judged guilty than innocent. If guilty he ends up in a Swedish prison, if innocent he gets extradited and gets the death penalty in the US. So his refusal to go says the opposite of what you think it does about what he considers of his chances to be judged guilty.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
rtx 6y ago
This the shortsightedness OP was talking about. >election interference Is fake news, the only real election interference is preventing people to vote.
7952 6y ago
It does sound like he was fishing for information which is different to what a leak usually is like. However, I don't see any issue with him being partisan. Why should he be any less partisan than any other journalist?
jessaustin 6y ago
People like Glenn Greenwald... Greenwald went on Tucker's show, to beg Trump to pardon Assange. [0] The theory is that this is the surest way to communicate with Trump. Snowden just appeared on Rogan to argue on Assange's behalf. Those who actually respect Greenwald's and Snowden's judgment, join them in supporting Assange. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4qCvxghNMo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4qCvxghNMo
- bitexploder 6y ago
  I just view Greenwald as a more careful agitator that maintained proper distance. Assange, Greenwald, and Snowden make quite an interesting trio in the discussion of state secrets. I don’t really question Snowden+Greenwald’s legitimacy. I think Snowden is in sharp contrast to Assange who has never demonstrated any real integrity or principles other than attacking Democrats during the 2016 election. Assange and Trump are useful puppets off a hostile state or directly actors of said state. Snowden is a legitimate whistleblower and his intentions are much harder to question.
  - k1m 6y ago
    Assange: "29 year old young man in a foreign jurisdication he had no experience with, the subject of the largest intelligence man hunt the world has ever seen... at that moment, he reached out and asked us for help." Snowden: "While all of these news organisations around the world, all of these publishers, were trying to get a piece of the story, there was only one publisher that actually said we want to help the source. We want to make sure he's okay. We want to make sure that no matter what happens, he has somebody on his side, and that was Wikileaks." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVoUPnXqvNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVoUPnXqvNE

k1m 6y ago

> I don't think you could engineer a less sympathetic character to carry the banner of freedom of speech/press Assange being an unsympathetic figure is largely a result of the fierce media campaign to paint him as one. Most of us have never met him, have only read about him in hostile media. Noam Chomsky and Alice Walker made the point well, I think: > 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. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/julian-assange-trial-us-trump-chelsea-manning-chomsky-walker-b420930.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/julian-assange-trial-us... You write: > The manning case in particular is an area where I believe he crossed the line and was actively assisting and encouraging Manning. Have you read the testimony of experts about this? See for example Eric Lewis, a practising US attorney and former law professor: > [Prosectuor] James Lewis QC: Do you accept that a government insider who leaks classified information may be prosecuted? > Eric Lewis: Yes. > James Lewis QC: Do you accept that a journalist may not aid such a person to break the law? > Eric Lewis: No. It is normal journalistic practice to cultivate an official source and encourage them to leak. Seymour Hersh would have to be prosecuted under such an idea. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-10/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-... Here's investigative journalist Nicky Hager: > [Prosecutor] Lewis: You have as a journalist merely been the passive recipient of official information. Presumably you have never done anything criminal to obtain government information? > Hager: You said “passive”. That is not the way we work. Journalists not only actively work our sources. We go out and find our sources. The information might come in documents. It might come on a memory stick. In most cases our sources are breaking the law. Our duty is to help protect them from being caught. We actively help them cover their backs sometimes. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-13/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...

bitexploder 6y ago
In the instance of the Manning probes and cases I can accept that he is filling the role of a journalist, he just isn't a very good one that failed to protect his sources. I can mostly accept up to the 2016 elections that he was relatively clean of any real ethical violations / legal trouble despite what journalists and the govt might say. Around the 2016 Guccifer and DNC leaks I don't accept he was acting as a mere journalist. He was, at best, and I think this strains intellectual credulity, an unwitting Russian asset. In reality, he was likely a willing Russian asset based on the evidence. It walks and quacks like a duck based on its behavior. If he wasn't an active and willing Russian asset I would be surprised. He played a key role in the DNC hack. Here he may, possibly, be ethically clean, but his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party. I don't see how anyone can support that sort of behavior. There isn't enough evidence in the public sphere to convict him of crimes, so I think that is a miscarriage of justice and the legal system, but the continued white knighting of Assange in technocratic circles continues to amuse me.
- k1m 6y ago
  > He was, at best, and I think this strains intellectual credulity, an unwitting Russian asset. In reality, he was likely a willing Russian asset based on the evidence. Based on what evidence? Assange stated that "our source is not the Russian government or any state party." So I'm curious what evidence you've seen to say it was. > ...his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party. I assume by this you mean he was trying to help Trump. Again, I don't see any evidence for this. See for example this article by Caitlin Johnstone which outlines why this isn't plausible: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-18-he-was-a-trump-supporter-92db307784d7 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-18-he-was-a... She writes: > In July 2016 Assange compared the choice between Clinton and Trump to a choice between cholera and gonorrhea, saying, “Personally, I would prefer neither.” When a Twitter user suggested to Assange in 2017 that he start sucking up to Trump in order to secure a pardon, Assange replied, “I’d rather eat my own intestines.” Not to mention of course that it's now the Trump administration that's pursuing him and trying to send him to a US prison.

nickysielicki 6y ago

> I feel he removed some of his legal protection by being so actively involved in hunting for government secrets. > I don't believe that, because I think the actual case against him has merit. > He broke his own operational "security" code of staying above the fray by being such an active participant in the acquisition of state secrets. The manning case in particular is an area where I believe he crossed the line and was actively assisting and encouraging Manning. Enough with the hand waving. This is a technical forum where you're writing for people who are familiar with things like NTLM and hashing. Let's talk facts. Assange is being charged due to the following instant message conversation. > Manning: any good at lm hash cracking? > Assange: yes > Assange: <continuing conversation, goes off on a short tangent about wikileaks funding> > Assange: we have rainbow tables for lm. > Manning: 80c11049faebf441d524fb3c4cd5351c > Manning: I think it's lm + lmnt > Manning: anyway... > Manning: need sleep :yawn: > Manning: not even sure if that's the hash... I had to hexdump a SAM file, since I don't have the system file... > Assange: what makes you think it's lm? > Assange: its from a SAM? > Manning: yeah > Assange: passed it onto our lm guy > Manning: thx Then, 2 days later after a long discussion about wikileaks and intelligence agencies and other leaks. > Assange: any more hints about this lm hash? > Assange: no luck so far And that's the end of it. Whole conversation here: https://emma.best/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2010-03-05-to-2010-03-18-CM-JA-log.pdf https://emma.best/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2010-03-05-to-2... Is this a CFAA violation? No hashes were cracked. No additional access was had. He maybe put in a half-hearted attempt to crack a hash. To me, this is not being "actively involved" in "hunting for government secrets." edit: I think it speaks volumes that this is the best thing they can find to stick him with.

Drip33 6y ago
> Is this a CFAA violation? No hashes were cracked Cracking hashes alone is not a crime or I'd be in jail.
- bb88 6y ago
  Sure, but what was the intent? Did you crack a hash as some part of a computer contest? Or were you helping someone crack the hash with the intent to get access to a US DoD government computer? The way the law is apparently written, the first is not illegal. The second would be conspiracy.

llamaz 6y ago

Democracy requires informed consent, and an education on the facts. A truly free people are trusted with the facts, and it is the ethical duty of journalists to provide this education, and as such Assange has acted to the highest ethical standards. I don't claim there is some higher power (e.g. the direction of history, science) from where democracy as a societal telos (i.e. end goal) gains its legitimacy. I just think most people desire democracy as a telos for society, and this collective desire is a basis for ethics. The version of ethics according to which Assange is unethical is a jurdical view of ethics, where the laws created by the state are taken to be the laws of ethics. But the moment you accept that this juridical ethics is a transcendent source of objective truth, you've taken an extremely one sided partisan political position i.e. that of the elites, who wrote the laws, and created the laws of ethics that reinforce the status quo.

coldtea 6y ago

>I don't think you could engineer a less sympathetic character to carry the banner of freedom of speech/press Of course you could. Any journalist that participated in the years-long character assassination to make Assange appear "less sympathetic" is a less sympathetic character themselves...

charwalker 6y ago
If I'm improperly accused of sexual assault (totally innocent) I'll hear that case out instead of hiding in my man cave at a foreign embassy while still making contact with questionable foreign intelligence figures.
- jwalton 6y ago
  Ok, but what if you get accused of sexual assault, and you know that if you go into custody in that foreign country, you'll probably never go to trial, because you'll immediately be extradited to the US for trumped up espionage charges and face the death penalty? You still going to go hear that case out?
- coldtea 6y ago
  >I'll hear that case out instead of hiding in my man cave at a foreign embassy You'd only do that if you were stupid enough to not already understand that the accusation was setup, with a little US pressure into an anyways willing subordinate government (Sweden), to get you to a circus trial and then extradition. Fortunately Assange was not that naive.
- jules 6y ago
  What you fail to realize is that for Assange, it would be a better outcome to go to trial and be judged guilty than innocent. If guilty he ends up in a Swedish prison, if innocent he gets extradited and gets the death penalty in the US. So his refusal to go says the opposite of what you think it does about what he considers of his chances to be judged guilty.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

rtx 6y ago

This the shortsightedness OP was talking about. >election interference Is fake news, the only real election interference is preventing people to vote.

7952 6y ago

It does sound like he was fishing for information which is different to what a leak usually is like. However, I don't see any issue with him being partisan. Why should he be any less partisan than any other journalist?

jessaustin 6y ago

People like Glenn Greenwald... Greenwald went on Tucker's show, to beg Trump to pardon Assange. [0] The theory is that this is the surest way to communicate with Trump. Snowden just appeared on Rogan to argue on Assange's behalf. Those who actually respect Greenwald's and Snowden's judgment, join them in supporting Assange. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4qCvxghNMo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4qCvxghNMo

bitexploder 6y ago
I just view Greenwald as a more careful agitator that maintained proper distance. Assange, Greenwald, and Snowden make quite an interesting trio in the discussion of state secrets. I don’t really question Snowden+Greenwald’s legitimacy. I think Snowden is in sharp contrast to Assange who has never demonstrated any real integrity or principles other than attacking Democrats during the 2016 election. Assange and Trump are useful puppets off a hostile state or directly actors of said state. Snowden is a legitimate whistleblower and his intentions are much harder to question.
- k1m 6y ago
  Assange: "29 year old young man in a foreign jurisdication he had no experience with, the subject of the largest intelligence man hunt the world has ever seen... at that moment, he reached out and asked us for help." Snowden: "While all of these news organisations around the world, all of these publishers, were trying to get a piece of the story, there was only one publisher that actually said we want to help the source. We want to make sure he's okay. We want to make sure that no matter what happens, he has somebody on his side, and that was Wikileaks." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVoUPnXqvNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVoUPnXqvNE