5 ms·

Priorities change. He's not really a threat anymore. They've thoroughly scared people who might copy him.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
netsharc 2y ago
And haven't they broken his brain anyway with all the solitary confinement... Ah, Western Democracy and the rule of law and humane treatment of prisoners, how we love thee. That sounds like I'm pro-Russia or China, but no, I don't like them either.
- pezezin 2y ago
  I don't know why you are getting downvoted, your comment is spot on. The way this man has been treated should be an embarrassment to all the leaders of the so-called free world.
- jeffparsons 2y ago
  To make your point even more explicit: The kind of imprisonment that Assange was subjected to is unambiguously torture, and was unambiguously administered for the purpose of revenge. There is no natural "need" for the conditions he was subjected to (e.g. the cost of a larger cell is negligible), and no natural purpose other than to punish. I am deliberately ignoring the question of guilt here, because I don't believe that we should torture _anyone_, regardless of the crime. The fact that we do this is a giant ugly stain on civilisation.
lolinder 2y ago
This is how conspiracy theories are so resilient. Everything is evidence of the conspiracy. Someone gets arrested? The conspirators had it out for them. They later get freed? The conspirators simply changed their mind! It's not that you're wrong, it's just that your argument is entirely unfalsifiable.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  What's the conspiracy? He was a known whistleblower and the U.S. was upset that he assisted in the acquisition of certain documents. All of the motivations have been quite open.
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    It's not really accurate to call him a whistleblower. He was acting as a conduit of information for whistleblowers, though he exercised his own discretion to decide which whistleblowers to release for. The reason he was charged by the US is because rather than just being a recipient of leaked documents he took an active part in helping an insider obtain them by breaking internal security controls. That's crossing a line and is something journalists are careful to never do.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      A google search defines "whistleblower" as a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity. I fail to see the material difference. He was also a journalist.
      - _djo_ 2y ago
        There's more to this than just googling for a basic definition. When he provided tools and direct guidance to Chelsea Manning to access classified information and when he and others breached the Congressional Research Service to leak documents from there he went far beyond what any professional journalist would do and lost the associated protections.
        soulofmischief 2y ago
        Please don't patronize me just because you were wrong about the definition of whistleblower. > went far beyond what any professional journalist would do A useless statement without contextualization, but you can spare the contextualization because it's a moot point; Assange, running his own outfit, is free to decide for himself what kind of journalist he wishes to be. He doesn't have to follow CNN's playbook because he doesn't work for CNN. I'm not defending the lack of censorship which may have put lives at immediate risk, but that's also not the basis on which the US government has sought his extradition. The basis of their argument had to do with the act of allegedly providing Manning the means of acquiring the data. > lost the associated protections You're downplaying the significance of the Cablegate leaks. The US went to great lengths to prosecute and get revenge on everyone involved, including Manning. I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make here, as you're shifting goalposts.
gilgoomesh 2y ago
Assange wasn't really a threat on his own. He was merely an outlet for others (Chelsea Manning, Russian propagandists). The question was whether he encouraged others. Snowden showed that leakers didn't need Wikileaks for Chelsea Manning-like releases and the Russians have just switched to directly releasing on Twitter.
- dralley 2y ago
  >the Russians have just switched to directly releasing on Twitter. Or more frequently just making shit up. Enough people will believe it anyway if they're politically inclined to do so, plausible details are not a required element.
bandrami 2y ago
No, governments have just realized leaks don't matter. The age of conspiracies is over; the public no longer distinguishes fact from BS so it doesn't matter what is and isn't out there on TikTok.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

And haven't they broken his brain anyway with all the solitary confinement... Ah, Western Democracy and the rule of law and humane treatment of prisoners, how we love thee. That sounds like I'm pro-Russia or China, but no, I don't like them either.

pezezin 2y ago
I don't know why you are getting downvoted, your comment is spot on. The way this man has been treated should be an embarrassment to all the leaders of the so-called free world.
jeffparsons 2y ago
To make your point even more explicit: The kind of imprisonment that Assange was subjected to is unambiguously torture, and was unambiguously administered for the purpose of revenge. There is no natural "need" for the conditions he was subjected to (e.g. the cost of a larger cell is negligible), and no natural purpose other than to punish. I am deliberately ignoring the question of guilt here, because I don't believe that we should torture _anyone_, regardless of the crime. The fact that we do this is a giant ugly stain on civilisation.

lolinder 2y ago

This is how conspiracy theories are so resilient. Everything is evidence of the conspiracy. Someone gets arrested? The conspirators had it out for them. They later get freed? The conspirators simply changed their mind! It's not that you're wrong, it's just that your argument is entirely unfalsifiable.

soulofmischief 2y ago
What's the conspiracy? He was a known whistleblower and the U.S. was upset that he assisted in the acquisition of certain documents. All of the motivations have been quite open.
- _djo_ 2y ago
  It's not really accurate to call him a whistleblower. He was acting as a conduit of information for whistleblowers, though he exercised his own discretion to decide which whistleblowers to release for. The reason he was charged by the US is because rather than just being a recipient of leaked documents he took an active part in helping an insider obtain them by breaking internal security controls. That's crossing a line and is something journalists are careful to never do.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    A google search defines "whistleblower" as a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity. I fail to see the material difference. He was also a journalist.
    - _djo_ 2y ago
      There's more to this than just googling for a basic definition. When he provided tools and direct guidance to Chelsea Manning to access classified information and when he and others breached the Congressional Research Service to leak documents from there he went far beyond what any professional journalist would do and lost the associated protections.
      - soulofmischief 2y ago
        Please don't patronize me just because you were wrong about the definition of whistleblower. > went far beyond what any professional journalist would do A useless statement without contextualization, but you can spare the contextualization because it's a moot point; Assange, running his own outfit, is free to decide for himself what kind of journalist he wishes to be. He doesn't have to follow CNN's playbook because he doesn't work for CNN. I'm not defending the lack of censorship which may have put lives at immediate risk, but that's also not the basis on which the US government has sought his extradition. The basis of their argument had to do with the act of allegedly providing Manning the means of acquiring the data. > lost the associated protections You're downplaying the significance of the Cablegate leaks. The US went to great lengths to prosecute and get revenge on everyone involved, including Manning. I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make here, as you're shifting goalposts.

gilgoomesh 2y ago

Assange wasn't really a threat on his own. He was merely an outlet for others (Chelsea Manning, Russian propagandists). The question was whether he encouraged others. Snowden showed that leakers didn't need Wikileaks for Chelsea Manning-like releases and the Russians have just switched to directly releasing on Twitter.

dralley 2y ago
>the Russians have just switched to directly releasing on Twitter. Or more frequently just making shit up. Enough people will believe it anyway if they're politically inclined to do so, plausible details are not a required element.

bandrami 2y ago

No, governments have just realized leaks don't matter. The age of conspiracies is over; the public no longer distinguishes fact from BS so it doesn't matter what is and isn't out there on TikTok.