6 ms·

Most voices in support of Assange seem to come from people with strong conviction that he is clearly a good guy (unsurprisingly). I don’t really have an opinion

Most voices in support of Assange seem to come from people with strong conviction that he is clearly a good guy (unsurprisingly). I don’t really have an opinion. Could someone provide a more impassioned / balanced list of pros and cons? From my vague point of view, I get that he is sort of a journalist (so should be protected), but also the stuff he leaked did go quite far, like borderline-espionage scale (or is that unfair?). States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens (but not long term, clearly). Is much known about his associates, funding sources? If I were an enemy of the USA I’d probably quite like Assange (not that this on its own makes Assange himself a bad guy). Could someone fill in the gaps ELI5?

mikro2nd 5y ago
impassioned (comparative more impassioned, superlative most impassioned) Filled with intense emotion or passion; fervent. Perhaps you meant "impartial"?
- tkfu 5y ago
  Probably "impassionate". (Which has been displaced in modern usage by "dispassionate", but if you learned your English from books you're likely to still use.)
not1ofU 5y ago
This is a good read: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21839908-when-google-met-wikileaks https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21839908-when-google-met...
ryanlol 5y ago
There’s no universe in which Assange deserves the treatment he would receive in the US no matter how bad of a guy he is.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  But there's a special place in earth where it routinely happens: the US of A. What Assange is suffering pales against what happened in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib. Nobody ever paid.
  - DocTomoe 5y ago
    Well, Assange is not in the US quite yet - right now he is only being tortured by the British. Apparently, this will change soon, so ...
  - tjpnz 5y ago
    In the case of Abu Graib there were consequences for the soldiers directly involved. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_priso...
    - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
      My feeling is that they were the perpetrators, but not those who were actually responsible for what happened. Meaning that the event might or might not be isolated, but the chain of command is responsible for the mentality.
holysht 5y ago
"help I need hacker news to tell me what to think"
agd 5y ago
In summary, it's as you say. Wikileaks has released a tonne of sensitive material which has often made the US look bad and revealed war crimes. The US wants to punish Assange as the leader of Wikileaks to deter others from doing the same. Most journalists and lawyers (although not all) believe that Wikileaks' activity is journalistic, and therefore that Assange can't be prosecuted for this activity. So the US is trying to charge him for other things, e.g. for helping others hack. Whether other states have been involved in leaking info to Wikileaks... who knows? It's likely, because, well, why wouldn't they? However no one has suggested the info released by Wikileaks is false. As far as money, I believe most of the Wikileaks funds have come from public donations and often their legal advice is paid for by friends or pro bono. So I don't think there's anything nefarious going on there. What has been clear is that the US will go to extreme lengths to get him into a US jail, from discussions about rendition, assassination, and faking evidence (e.g. with a key witness in this trial), to significant political pressure on allies and other states to cooperate with them on this. He is an 'enemy of the state' in their eyes.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  > What has been clear is that the US will go to extreme lengths to get him into a US jail, from discussions about rendition, assassination, and faking evidence (e.g. with a key witness in this trial), to significant political pressure on allies and other states to cooperate with them on this. Right, and that's kinda messed-up given the standards we place on modern democracies and ourselves. Given the revelations, where are the consequences for those involved? How can we effect the consequences we want?
  - fsloth 5y ago
    "Right, and that's kinda messed-up given the standards we place on modern democracies and ourselves." And what standards would those be? US has never been "the good guy". They strike with impunity in disregard of collateral damage or decency, as long as domestic opinion can be kept in check. Never mistake an actor with strong realpolitik leverage to an universal benefactor.
- varjag 5y ago
gampleman 5y ago
> States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens Do they? Perhaps this is the crux of the matter, as I would say that a democracy has no reason to keep anything secret against the best interests of its citizens. It may have some operational need of secrecy for things that are in the interest of its citizens (i.e. it's in my interest that nuclear launch codes are kept secret) or can balance these with other rights and responsibilities (i.e. the right for privacy of its officers or the duty of care in not disclosing the dispositions of its forces in a war).
- brbrodude 5y ago
  Not to mention, the secret that they wanted kept that started it all wasn't about "special secret things that should be secret". Jump out of the platonics debate, reality's truth is just ugly.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  Some dodgy businessman might be a crook and criminal (no reference to Assange), but also a vital intelligence asset. It might be in the immediate interest of citizens to know that, and have the guy tried, but not so in the *long term. I would expect a competent intelligence service to keep the guy safe and his misdeeds under cover. Of course that can go badly wrong, I just mean, a priori, there may be very good reasons to keep secrets from your own people. But then this is why intelligence services need civilian supervision, just like armed forces do.
kstenerud 5y ago
This is not about how good or bad he is; it's about how the wheels of justice are continually being perverted by both the USA and the UK legal system (Scottish and British) in order to secure his extradition. A quick high-level list: - Bugging his conversations with his lawyers (the people involved have been charged in Spain and a trial is ongoing there, and some American nationals added to the Interpol list). - Preventing an expert witness from testifying in Spain about this bugging by arresting and convicting the expert on laughably bad evidence so that he can't travel to Spain. - Holding the accused in continual isolation for years now in one of the most brutal prisons in the UK (hell hole doesn't even begin to describe it). - Holding his hearings in a remote location so as to dissuade people from attending. - Barring most of the people who do try to attend, including human rights observers (almost unheard of in non-dictatorships, and a first for non-violent offenders). - Ensuring that the accused cannot hear the proceedings or talk effectively with his lawyers by locking him in a glass box (normally only used for extremely violent offenders). - Preventing the accused access to his lawyers outside of the courtroom (this alone is enough to declare a mistrial). - Allowing the USA to change the indictment and submit different evidence months into the proceedings after it became clear they couldn't win, and then giving the defence a single day to prepare (hundreds, possibly thousands of pages). - Allowing the USA team to flout court proceedings, and then preventing the defence from doing what they are allowed by law to do, preventing expert defence witnesses saying it will take too long, cutting cross examinations short, denying admission of evidence after weak, sometimes bizarre USA objections, etc. Although the last judge was terrible in many ways, she did block the extradition on the grounds of suicide risk (personally, I think she just didn't have the stomach to be the one to sign him over). What they need now is a sympathetic judge to overrule this one point and disallow any arguments to the other points. That's what this latest chapter is about.
- maccolgan 5y ago
  This looks like something that would be done over an international mass murderer, but he is being tried for ... rape? EDIT: Nvm, even if he is being tried for espionage, this looks disproportionate
  - kstenerud 5y ago
Lhiw 5y ago
> Most voices in support of Assange seem to come from people with strong conviction that he is clearly a good guy (unsurprisingly). I don’t really have an opinion. Aside from already expressing your opinion.. you then continue to give your opinion in much more detail. You lack even the basic understanding of what has been done to him yet you've somehow formed this fully fledged opinion on the subject? Your post reeks of CIA shill.
DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
If you grew up in the hacker-scene of the late 80ies early 90ies it might be easier to empathize with him than what is possible just reading the US/UK/SE documents claiming he is a rapey person that enjoys torturing cats. I don't think he is either a hero nor a villain, but has the classic mentality of the hacker-scene (both useful but also highly toxic). Broken people (aren't we all?) who try to be larger-than-life figures. The difference between Assange and the rest is he thought "sticking it to the man" is possible while not living in a safe place that supports his "work". Assange has been living this fantasy of a small good guy who can fight back because of his hacking skills and never grew up from the kid he was. Who hasn't tried to access *.mil domains in the late 80ies or hack a payphone for free international calls? At least everyone bragged about it. There are people still out there today claiming you can issue a "climb command"[0] to the CAN-bus of an aircraft via the infotainment system just so they are liked more on social media (same sad mentality). His biggest flaw is not taking sides and thinking that he could get away with exposing US interests from US friendly territory. All of the wannabe independent citizen journalists who are successful must be backed by the intelligence community in the country they operate. Bellingcat is a good example because it paints the outfit as something that was bootstrapped by 1 guy without a job in his bedroom (Elliot Higgins) but Elliot has good friends in UK intelligence and Atlantic council. Belingcat does fantastic work but believe not for 1 second that they would be able to drop the intel that Assange did without getting retired quickly. You can not work in IC without choosing a side that you feed the info to and that you also rely on support. Assange thought he could live like a digital nomad traveling on his real passport while literally calling DoS asking to speak to H. Clinton and strongarm her. His failure to chose a side meant life chose a side for him, by becoming the mouthpiece for Guccifer 2.0 (GRU). I do not think he decided to pick a side suddenly (RU), but that he ended up being a useful idiot that eventually had no choice but to double down. Both so that he isn't seen flip-flopping but also because FVEY already were out to get him. The sheer stupidity of doing all this from Europe and UK is hard to understand . If you upset your own Western government you better have a second passport from China or Russia and don't do it from that country. It's what activists who want to be martyrs do but not journalists or members of the IC. Assange thought he could play in all these camps which is why he will eventually get disappeared into the prison system after this farce of a trial. The biggest casualty other than Assange is the truth. Also it anyone who who supported him has their own story about how they were hunted/harassed (Jacob Appelbaum, Ola Bini, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, ...) [0] https://www.usenix.org/publications/loginonline/vulnerable-system https://www.usenix.org/publications/loginonline/vulnerable-s... [1] Australia today isn't a real country but just a propaganda mouthpiece for the US IMHO. Australia is where the most conservative idea that are too insane to be tested in the US get rolled out- check the AABill where the gov can show up demanding you implement a backdoor without being able to disclose it to your employer or end up behind bars. They even have a law now that let's LE plant evidence. There is a fantastic show called "underbelly" (the "Sopranos of Austriala") which does a great job showing how corrupt law enforcement is in Australia.
nabla9 5y ago
>that he is clearly a good guy The unspoken assumption behind this question is that any actor in our society needs to be morally or personally exemplary for their work to have value. It's a modern version of Donatism. Donatists were a group of Christians in the fourth century. Their core tenet was that priests need to be ‘faultless’ for their prayers and their sacraments to be valid It's often faulty son-of-the-bitch that makes a lasting positive mark on society. ---- About Assange. Assange started a hugely positive movement with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks continues to be a positive force. The problem with WikiLeaks under Assange was that he could not keep it impersonal under stress. Assange allowed himself and WikiLeaks to be used as a tool. Then he adopted a conspiratory tone to everything. His supporters are now completely convinced that everyone in the government fulfilling their lawful orders is personally invested in an evil plot to get him. Contrast Assange to Snowden. Snowden lives in Russia but is less a tool for Russians than Assange is. Snowden understands that people whose job is to get him, are not some evil cabal. Breaking the law for the good of the society is sometimes necessary. That does not mean that everyone on the opposite side is evil.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  I guess a part of my question was, is WikiLeaks _really_ a good thing? I just don't know. ELI5 if you'd like. I'm deliberately keeping any personality assessments out of it. Assange seems like a strange guy, but even if true, I agree that's besides the point.
  - nabla9 5y ago
    WikiLeaks is a good thing. WikiLeaks works as protection intermediary between journals and sources https://wikileaks.org/-Partners-.html https://wikileaks.org/-Partners-.html
coldtea 5y ago
>From my vague point of view, I get that he is sort of a journalist (so should be protected), but also the stuff he leaked did go quite far, like borderline-espionage scale So? When did exposing espionage become a bad thing? >States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens Says who? The states themselves?
brbrodude 5y ago
It's not about him, it's what this case tells us about us. It's just not possible to believe the story western society tells to itself about itself, and it's a harsh realization. Also, that was a persons life and mostly we can just watch as selected the enemy of the empire gets destroyed.
sigmaprimus 5y ago
This is all related to Edward Snowden the whistle blower, as far as funding goes, I believe KimDotCom was involved and the powers that be managed to crucify him already. I think if and when the US gets the opportunity to bring Assange to trial it will be in a closed court and the outcome will be already determined. Someone has to pay for exposing US government crimes. PS Epstein didn't kill himself and where is the coverage for Ghislaine's trail? Is the story being buried because too many important men visited the infamous island? Shame the Johns!!!! #TimesUp #meToo
dogleash 5y ago
>impassioned / balanced list of pros and cons? If I recall correctly, the thesis of wikileaks from their beginning was that leaks increase the cost and complexity to governments keeping their actions secret therefore providing a sort of forcing function to reduce both the number and scope of dishonorable actions carried out in secret. Wikileaks is best understood as a force vector in a system. It's possible to have an opinion on the idea of leaking as a force for good. And that opinion could be conditional or even strong disagreement. The strength and direction of someone's opinion on that will determine how their opinion of Assange is further influenced. Influenced by the ancillary topics like sources of leaks, sources of funding, topics leaked about and editorial control exercised over what is released. People's opinion on wikileaks in general can change after seeing who takes the "W"s and who takes the "L"s, and it's worthwhile to cultivate a feedback loop where your opinion of wikileaks is downstream from your opinion of leaking in general. Frankly, I don't care whether he is a good guy or a bad guy. I'm not having him around for Christmas, he's a force vector in a system. I have an opinion on that force vector. It's worth also remembering that good/bad is different than legal/illegal, and that our standards for government includes the expectation of just due process even for those that are obviously monstrous criminals.
- gardnr 5y ago
  I'm generally with you but can you illuminate the difference between the "W"s and the "L"s?
lawn 5y ago
> Most voices in support of Assange seem to come from people with strong conviction that he is clearly a good guy (unsurprisingly). That's not my perception at all. It seems to me that people support Assange because the US don't like people showing proof of their war crimes, so they want to make an example of him.
cafard 5y ago
> States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens (but not long term, clearly). I don't disagree, but that this has never been considered to bind those who are not citizens or residents of those states. Is there a state in existence today that does not maintain what intelligence apparatus it can afford, in order to learn the secrets of other states?
mcv 5y ago
I have plenty of criticism of Assange. I mean, I had a very favourable view of him before the leaks, I feel the Collateral Murder video is very important, and I think it's important that governments can be held accountable for their crimes, so in those areas I'm on his side. But I'm not so happy with his grand-standing, with the way he handled some of the data, with his attempts to work with Russia and Trump to influence US elections, or with how he handled those Swedish rape allegations. There is plenty of criticism for everybody here. But the biggest issue is still the core issue: does the US have the right to commit war crimes, and does it have the right to persecute anyone who tries to publicise those crimes?
GoodJokes 5y ago
So your own research lazy

mikro2nd 5y ago

impassioned (comparative more impassioned, superlative most impassioned) Filled with intense emotion or passion; fervent. Perhaps you meant "impartial"?

tkfu 5y ago
Probably "impassionate". (Which has been displaced in modern usage by "dispassionate", but if you learned your English from books you're likely to still use.)

not1ofU 5y ago

This is a good read: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21839908-when-google-met-wikileaks https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21839908-when-google-met...

ryanlol 5y ago

There’s no universe in which Assange deserves the treatment he would receive in the US no matter how bad of a guy he is.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
But there's a special place in earth where it routinely happens: the US of A. What Assange is suffering pales against what happened in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib. Nobody ever paid.
- DocTomoe 5y ago
  Well, Assange is not in the US quite yet - right now he is only being tortured by the British. Apparently, this will change soon, so ...
- tjpnz 5y ago
  In the case of Abu Graib there were consequences for the soldiers directly involved. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_priso...
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    My feeling is that they were the perpetrators, but not those who were actually responsible for what happened. Meaning that the event might or might not be isolated, but the chain of command is responsible for the mentality.

holysht 5y ago

"help I need hacker news to tell me what to think"

agd 5y ago

In summary, it's as you say. Wikileaks has released a tonne of sensitive material which has often made the US look bad and revealed war crimes. The US wants to punish Assange as the leader of Wikileaks to deter others from doing the same. Most journalists and lawyers (although not all) believe that Wikileaks' activity is journalistic, and therefore that Assange can't be prosecuted for this activity. So the US is trying to charge him for other things, e.g. for helping others hack. Whether other states have been involved in leaking info to Wikileaks... who knows? It's likely, because, well, why wouldn't they? However no one has suggested the info released by Wikileaks is false. As far as money, I believe most of the Wikileaks funds have come from public donations and often their legal advice is paid for by friends or pro bono. So I don't think there's anything nefarious going on there. What has been clear is that the US will go to extreme lengths to get him into a US jail, from discussions about rendition, assassination, and faking evidence (e.g. with a key witness in this trial), to significant political pressure on allies and other states to cooperate with them on this. He is an 'enemy of the state' in their eyes.

DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
> What has been clear is that the US will go to extreme lengths to get him into a US jail, from discussions about rendition, assassination, and faking evidence (e.g. with a key witness in this trial), to significant political pressure on allies and other states to cooperate with them on this. Right, and that's kinda messed-up given the standards we place on modern democracies and ourselves. Given the revelations, where are the consequences for those involved? How can we effect the consequences we want?
- fsloth 5y ago
  "Right, and that's kinda messed-up given the standards we place on modern democracies and ourselves." And what standards would those be? US has never been "the good guy". They strike with impunity in disregard of collateral damage or decency, as long as domestic opinion can be kept in check. Never mistake an actor with strong realpolitik leverage to an universal benefactor.
varjag 5y ago

gampleman 5y ago

> States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens Do they? Perhaps this is the crux of the matter, as I would say that a democracy has no reason to keep anything secret against the best interests of its citizens. It may have some operational need of secrecy for things that are in the interest of its citizens (i.e. it's in my interest that nuclear launch codes are kept secret) or can balance these with other rights and responsibilities (i.e. the right for privacy of its officers or the duty of care in not disclosing the dispositions of its forces in a war).

brbrodude 5y ago
Not to mention, the secret that they wanted kept that started it all wasn't about "special secret things that should be secret". Jump out of the platonics debate, reality's truth is just ugly.
rich_sasha 5y ago
Some dodgy businessman might be a crook and criminal (no reference to Assange), but also a vital intelligence asset. It might be in the immediate interest of citizens to know that, and have the guy tried, but not so in the *long term. I would expect a competent intelligence service to keep the guy safe and his misdeeds under cover. Of course that can go badly wrong, I just mean, a priori, there may be very good reasons to keep secrets from your own people. But then this is why intelligence services need civilian supervision, just like armed forces do.

kstenerud 5y ago

This is not about how good or bad he is; it's about how the wheels of justice are continually being perverted by both the USA and the UK legal system (Scottish and British) in order to secure his extradition. A quick high-level list: - Bugging his conversations with his lawyers (the people involved have been charged in Spain and a trial is ongoing there, and some American nationals added to the Interpol list). - Preventing an expert witness from testifying in Spain about this bugging by arresting and convicting the expert on laughably bad evidence so that he can't travel to Spain. - Holding the accused in continual isolation for years now in one of the most brutal prisons in the UK (hell hole doesn't even begin to describe it). - Holding his hearings in a remote location so as to dissuade people from attending. - Barring most of the people who do try to attend, including human rights observers (almost unheard of in non-dictatorships, and a first for non-violent offenders). - Ensuring that the accused cannot hear the proceedings or talk effectively with his lawyers by locking him in a glass box (normally only used for extremely violent offenders). - Preventing the accused access to his lawyers outside of the courtroom (this alone is enough to declare a mistrial). - Allowing the USA to change the indictment and submit different evidence months into the proceedings after it became clear they couldn't win, and then giving the defence a single day to prepare (hundreds, possibly thousands of pages). - Allowing the USA team to flout court proceedings, and then preventing the defence from doing what they are allowed by law to do, preventing expert defence witnesses saying it will take too long, cutting cross examinations short, denying admission of evidence after weak, sometimes bizarre USA objections, etc. Although the last judge was terrible in many ways, she did block the extradition on the grounds of suicide risk (personally, I think she just didn't have the stomach to be the one to sign him over). What they need now is a sympathetic judge to overrule this one point and disallow any arguments to the other points. That's what this latest chapter is about.

maccolgan 5y ago
This looks like something that would be done over an international mass murderer, but he is being tried for ... rape? EDIT: Nvm, even if he is being tried for espionage, this looks disproportionate
- kstenerud 5y ago

Lhiw 5y ago

> Most voices in support of Assange seem to come from people with strong conviction that he is clearly a good guy (unsurprisingly). I don’t really have an opinion. Aside from already expressing your opinion.. you then continue to give your opinion in much more detail. You lack even the basic understanding of what has been done to him yet you've somehow formed this fully fledged opinion on the subject? Your post reeks of CIA shill.

DyslexicAtheist 5y ago

If you grew up in the hacker-scene of the late 80ies early 90ies it might be easier to empathize with him than what is possible just reading the US/UK/SE documents claiming he is a rapey person that enjoys torturing cats. I don't think he is either a hero nor a villain, but has the classic mentality of the hacker-scene (both useful but also highly toxic). Broken people (aren't we all?) who try to be larger-than-life figures. The difference between Assange and the rest is he thought "sticking it to the man" is possible while not living in a safe place that supports his "work". Assange has been living this fantasy of a small good guy who can fight back because of his hacking skills and never grew up from the kid he was. Who hasn't tried to access *.mil domains in the late 80ies or hack a payphone for free international calls? At least everyone bragged about it. There are people still out there today claiming you can issue a "climb command"[0] to the CAN-bus of an aircraft via the infotainment system just so they are liked more on social media (same sad mentality). His biggest flaw is not taking sides and thinking that he could get away with exposing US interests from US friendly territory. All of the wannabe independent citizen journalists who are successful must be backed by the intelligence community in the country they operate. Bellingcat is a good example because it paints the outfit as something that was bootstrapped by 1 guy without a job in his bedroom (Elliot Higgins) but Elliot has good friends in UK intelligence and Atlantic council. Belingcat does fantastic work but believe not for 1 second that they would be able to drop the intel that Assange did without getting retired quickly. You can not work in IC without choosing a side that you feed the info to and that you also rely on support. Assange thought he could live like a digital nomad traveling on his real passport while literally calling DoS asking to speak to H. Clinton and strongarm her. His failure to chose a side meant life chose a side for him, by becoming the mouthpiece for Guccifer 2.0 (GRU). I do not think he decided to pick a side suddenly (RU), but that he ended up being a useful idiot that eventually had no choice but to double down. Both so that he isn't seen flip-flopping but also because FVEY already were out to get him. The sheer stupidity of doing all this from Europe and UK is hard to understand . If you upset your own Western government you better have a second passport from China or Russia and don't do it from that country. It's what activists who want to be martyrs do but not journalists or members of the IC. Assange thought he could play in all these camps which is why he will eventually get disappeared into the prison system after this farce of a trial. The biggest casualty other than Assange is the truth. Also it anyone who who supported him has their own story about how they were hunted/harassed (Jacob Appelbaum, Ola Bini, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, ...) [0] https://www.usenix.org/publications/loginonline/vulnerable-system https://www.usenix.org/publications/loginonline/vulnerable-s... [1] Australia today isn't a real country but just a propaganda mouthpiece for the US IMHO. Australia is where the most conservative idea that are too insane to be tested in the US get rolled out- check the AABill where the gov can show up demanding you implement a backdoor without being able to disclose it to your employer or end up behind bars. They even have a law now that let's LE plant evidence. There is a fantastic show called "underbelly" (the "Sopranos of Austriala") which does a great job showing how corrupt law enforcement is in Australia.

nabla9 5y ago

>that he is clearly a good guy The unspoken assumption behind this question is that any actor in our society needs to be morally or personally exemplary for their work to have value. It's a modern version of Donatism. Donatists were a group of Christians in the fourth century. Their core tenet was that priests need to be ‘faultless’ for their prayers and their sacraments to be valid It's often faulty son-of-the-bitch that makes a lasting positive mark on society. ---- About Assange. Assange started a hugely positive movement with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks continues to be a positive force. The problem with WikiLeaks under Assange was that he could not keep it impersonal under stress. Assange allowed himself and WikiLeaks to be used as a tool. Then he adopted a conspiratory tone to everything. His supporters are now completely convinced that everyone in the government fulfilling their lawful orders is personally invested in an evil plot to get him. Contrast Assange to Snowden. Snowden lives in Russia but is less a tool for Russians than Assange is. Snowden understands that people whose job is to get him, are not some evil cabal. Breaking the law for the good of the society is sometimes necessary. That does not mean that everyone on the opposite side is evil.

rich_sasha 5y ago
I guess a part of my question was, is WikiLeaks _really_ a good thing? I just don't know. ELI5 if you'd like. I'm deliberately keeping any personality assessments out of it. Assange seems like a strange guy, but even if true, I agree that's besides the point.
- nabla9 5y ago
  WikiLeaks is a good thing. WikiLeaks works as protection intermediary between journals and sources https://wikileaks.org/-Partners-.html https://wikileaks.org/-Partners-.html

coldtea 5y ago

>From my vague point of view, I get that he is sort of a journalist (so should be protected), but also the stuff he leaked did go quite far, like borderline-espionage scale So? When did exposing espionage become a bad thing? >States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens Says who? The states themselves?

brbrodude 5y ago

It's not about him, it's what this case tells us about us. It's just not possible to believe the story western society tells to itself about itself, and it's a harsh realization. Also, that was a persons life and mostly we can just watch as selected the enemy of the empire gets destroyed.

sigmaprimus 5y ago

This is all related to Edward Snowden the whistle blower, as far as funding goes, I believe KimDotCom was involved and the powers that be managed to crucify him already. I think if and when the US gets the opportunity to bring Assange to trial it will be in a closed court and the outcome will be already determined. Someone has to pay for exposing US government crimes. PS Epstein didn't kill himself and where is the coverage for Ghislaine's trail? Is the story being buried because too many important men visited the infamous island? Shame the Johns!!!! #TimesUp #meToo

dogleash 5y ago

>impassioned / balanced list of pros and cons? If I recall correctly, the thesis of wikileaks from their beginning was that leaks increase the cost and complexity to governments keeping their actions secret therefore providing a sort of forcing function to reduce both the number and scope of dishonorable actions carried out in secret. Wikileaks is best understood as a force vector in a system. It's possible to have an opinion on the idea of leaking as a force for good. And that opinion could be conditional or even strong disagreement. The strength and direction of someone's opinion on that will determine how their opinion of Assange is further influenced. Influenced by the ancillary topics like sources of leaks, sources of funding, topics leaked about and editorial control exercised over what is released. People's opinion on wikileaks in general can change after seeing who takes the "W"s and who takes the "L"s, and it's worthwhile to cultivate a feedback loop where your opinion of wikileaks is downstream from your opinion of leaking in general. Frankly, I don't care whether he is a good guy or a bad guy. I'm not having him around for Christmas, he's a force vector in a system. I have an opinion on that force vector. It's worth also remembering that good/bad is different than legal/illegal, and that our standards for government includes the expectation of just due process even for those that are obviously monstrous criminals.

gardnr 5y ago
I'm generally with you but can you illuminate the difference between the "W"s and the "L"s?

lawn 5y ago

> Most voices in support of Assange seem to come from people with strong conviction that he is clearly a good guy (unsurprisingly). That's not my perception at all. It seems to me that people support Assange because the US don't like people showing proof of their war crimes, so they want to make an example of him.

cafard 5y ago

> States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens (but not long term, clearly). I don't disagree, but that this has never been considered to bind those who are not citizens or residents of those states. Is there a state in existence today that does not maintain what intelligence apparatus it can afford, in order to learn the secrets of other states?

mcv 5y ago

I have plenty of criticism of Assange. I mean, I had a very favourable view of him before the leaks, I feel the Collateral Murder video is very important, and I think it's important that governments can be held accountable for their crimes, so in those areas I'm on his side. But I'm not so happy with his grand-standing, with the way he handled some of the data, with his attempts to work with Russia and Trump to influence US elections, or with how he handled those Swedish rape allegations. There is plenty of criticism for everybody here. But the biggest issue is still the core issue: does the US have the right to commit war crimes, and does it have the right to persecute anyone who tries to publicise those crimes?

GoodJokes 5y ago

So your own research lazy