5 ms·

He is a much beloved gentleman rogue. Invariably well-informed and well-spoken, even if somewhat self-centered or arrogant at times. For him and his family, I

by jgord 2y ago

He is a much beloved gentleman rogue. Invariably well-informed and well-spoken, even if somewhat self-centered or arrogant at times. For him and his family, Im glad hes free. Five years seems a pretty harsh sentence for publishing leaked information about governments behaving badly - isnt that what good journalists are supposed to do ?

tim333 2y ago
The argument against is he conspired with the leaking.
- Draiken 2y ago
  Does it really matter? We argue semantics around incidents like this when it comes down to: people doing bad stuff and trying to hide it. If anything, these laws are completely broken. People should never be punished for exposing bad actors, period. Imagine if that ever happened. Maybe governments and companies would think twice before acting illegally/immorally. Governments do not want these incidents to happen because they want to keep doing it in secrecy and they enact laws to make uncovering these schemes illegal. Arguing if that's illegal or not is missing the whole point. It will never be legal in a corrupt society like ours.
- colechristensen 2y ago
  He has agreed to plead guilty to violating the Espionage Act, it's no longer an argument, he's admitting it in court. He's going to go to a US court in one of our tiny pacific island territories to plead. He directly participated in stealing a bunch of classified information with Manning.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    A guilty plea faced with the choice of continued imprisonment in inhumane conditions or the risk of extradition to a country that might jail him for life or execute him does not end the argument of whether or not he is guilty of anything. It's a coerced plea. It only ends the argument of whether or not there is still a legal case against him.
    - jonhohle 2y ago
      I really would hope more people would understand this. Faced with indefinite detention and infinite legal cost would you admit to something you didn’t do to walk free? I’m pretty sure most people would. It’s a difficult area of research, but there are various law schools[0] and charities[1] trying to help people who took pleas because they feared a harsher sentence if they couldn’t adequately defend themselves. 0 - https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/NRE.Guilty.Plea.Article1.pdf https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/NRE.... 1 - https://innocenceproject.org/ https://innocenceproject.org/
    - pdabbadabba 2y ago
      > a country that might jail him for life or execute him I've always found this claim to be extremely shrill — and doubly so now. This is the same country that just agreed to let him plead guilty in exchange for, essentially, time served (~5 years). It's also the same country whose president commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence down to 7 years. Your basic claim is not an unreasonable one: people plead guilty because they'd rather take the deal than face the possibility of a worse outcome at trial. But what will it take to stop the rhetoric about the U.S. wanting to lock him up and throw away the key?
      - vidarh 2y ago
        It's also the same country that agreed to it only after it became clear that there was a real chance they might suffer the embarrassment of not getting an extradition and/or have to deal with a government after the election come the July 4 election that might - despite how I dislike Starmer - be at least somewhat less receptive to US pressure. > It's also the same country whose president commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence down to 7 years. The same country who may have a different president come November with a history of calling the Assange case a priority. Why would anyone feel safe relying on the luck of the draw of the president at any given time to get out of what was an initial utterly extreme sentence? > But what will it take to stop the rhetoric about the U.S. wanting to lock him up and throw away the key? When the US stops sentencing people to 35 years like with Chelsea Manning's initial sentence, and there's been a long period without e.g. illegal rendition flights, when Guantanamo Bay has been closed for a few decades and no new camps have taken it's place etc. Maybe when a couple of generations have passed, in other words.
  - ahf8Aithaex7Nai 2y ago
    I am really glad that your government is gradually losing influence and power. I wouldn't have expected it 20 years ago, but I will probably live to see you completely lose your global hegemony and your fantasies of power become nothing more than embarrassing, self-castrating nostalgia, just like in the former colonial powers of Europe.
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      > will probably live to see you completely lose your global hegemony and your fantasies of power become nothing more than embarrassing, self-castrating nostalgia And then you'll enjoy more experiences of aggressively-expansionist governments, Houthi-like groups, and the equivalent of Haitian gangs and Sudanese militias, all over the world, fighting to advance their leaders' own narrow parochial desires wherever they think they can get away with it. They'll be using WhatsApp, Starlink, and cheap drones in their efforts, and enlisting like-minded allies. You'll find yourself looking back wistfully on the days of the Pax Americana, which for nearly 80 years has maintained a flawed but workable rules-based international order. That's even granting that the U.S. has done some bad things — on occasion, very bad things — in furtherance of its own perceived interests and those of some of its powerful interest groups.
      - WanderPanda 2y ago
        This! The US hegemony is flawed but: 1. There is no other country (not even close) that could be trusted with that amount of power (especially considering size) 2. Held up the (illusion of) “neutral” international institutions like the UN. They barely worked in the presence of a “benevolent” power, and will probably completely lose relevance to anarchy and the “right of the stronger” (on local levels), shall the US hegemony subside. Then on the other hand the US has started undermining their own most important principles: 1. 1971: Removing the gold convertability from the $ 2. 9/11: Starting to spy on each and everyone, eastern germany/soviet-style 3. Removing personal freedoms during COVID (not as severe as other countries, though) If it weren’t for silicon valley, the us would already look like a stagnating state where the economy is mainly driven by government spending. The problem is larping EU socialism will only yield even worse results in the US, since the government seems to be even less efficient. On the other hand the US is also one of the few countries that have turned around non-violently in the past. Attractiveness for international talent is still immense. So with a few adjustments I’m pretty sure it could be turned around
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    > He directly participated in stealing a bunch of classified information with Manning. and a good thing that was too, exposing our government's wrongdoing and lies
    - colechristensen 2y ago
      >and a good thing that was too, exposing our government's wrongdoing and lies What exactly of value was exposed?
- belorn 2y ago
  A few months ago in Sweden we had a major news story about a journalist who went under cover as an employee of a political party media department in order to follow a story. They explicitly took the job in order to leak information which their employee contract disallowed. They will, practically guarantied, not get in legal problems for it. People occasionally talk about this tactic as being a bit of a morally grey zone but under cover journalism with an intention of leaking information (if they get their hands on it) do happen from times to times.
  - cbsmith 2y ago
    > They will, practically guarantied, not get in legal problems for it. Maybe things are different in Sweden, but violating an employee contract seems like a civil matter, not criminal, which is hugely different.
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    > They explicitly took the job in order to leak information which their employee contract disallowed. I get the feeling if they'd joined the Swedish military and leaked national secrets, things would not have worked out so nicely for them. That's what Assange was accused of, not being in the military, but actively conspiring with the leaker to steal the documents rather than merely receiving the leaked documents.
    - KennyBlanken 2y ago
      Further, if that reporter claimed to be all "free the secrets!" ...but when handed documents from one another foreign government refuses to publish them and then it becomes obvious that the leaks were targeting liberal Swedish politicians facing election versus conservative candidates favored by that same one particular other foreign government... I don't understand why people don't see wikileaks as anything other than a proxy Russian foreign intelligence operation.
      - smsm42 2y ago
        If they leak info against our opponents, they are free speech heroes and paladins of truth. If they leak info against our party, they are filthy dirty spies. I don't understand why people can't see it.
bigfudge 2y ago
They've been ruining his life for longer than five years haven't they?
- highcountess 2y ago
  ~14 years now
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    At least half of that he did entirely on his own. Nobody told him to hole up in the Bolivian (wasn't it?) embassy for seven years.
smdyc1 2y ago
Much beloved? Maybe in your circle, certainly nobody i know considered him beloved. I mean, the guy admitted to a room full of journalists he was happy to burn a bunch of Afghan informants. The guy is a narcissistic wanker who put lives at risk.

by jgord 2y ago

tim333 2y ago

The argument against is he conspired with the leaking.

Draiken 2y ago
Does it really matter? We argue semantics around incidents like this when it comes down to: people doing bad stuff and trying to hide it. If anything, these laws are completely broken. People should never be punished for exposing bad actors, period. Imagine if that ever happened. Maybe governments and companies would think twice before acting illegally/immorally. Governments do not want these incidents to happen because they want to keep doing it in secrecy and they enact laws to make uncovering these schemes illegal. Arguing if that's illegal or not is missing the whole point. It will never be legal in a corrupt society like ours.
colechristensen 2y ago
He has agreed to plead guilty to violating the Espionage Act, it's no longer an argument, he's admitting it in court. He's going to go to a US court in one of our tiny pacific island territories to plead. He directly participated in stealing a bunch of classified information with Manning.
- vidarh 2y ago
  A guilty plea faced with the choice of continued imprisonment in inhumane conditions or the risk of extradition to a country that might jail him for life or execute him does not end the argument of whether or not he is guilty of anything. It's a coerced plea. It only ends the argument of whether or not there is still a legal case against him.
  - jonhohle 2y ago
    I really would hope more people would understand this. Faced with indefinite detention and infinite legal cost would you admit to something you didn’t do to walk free? I’m pretty sure most people would. It’s a difficult area of research, but there are various law schools[0] and charities[1] trying to help people who took pleas because they feared a harsher sentence if they couldn’t adequately defend themselves. 0 - https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/NRE.Guilty.Plea.Article1.pdf https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/NRE.... 1 - https://innocenceproject.org/ https://innocenceproject.org/
  - pdabbadabba 2y ago
    > a country that might jail him for life or execute him I've always found this claim to be extremely shrill — and doubly so now. This is the same country that just agreed to let him plead guilty in exchange for, essentially, time served (~5 years). It's also the same country whose president commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence down to 7 years. Your basic claim is not an unreasonable one: people plead guilty because they'd rather take the deal than face the possibility of a worse outcome at trial. But what will it take to stop the rhetoric about the U.S. wanting to lock him up and throw away the key?
    - vidarh 2y ago
      It's also the same country that agreed to it only after it became clear that there was a real chance they might suffer the embarrassment of not getting an extradition and/or have to deal with a government after the election come the July 4 election that might - despite how I dislike Starmer - be at least somewhat less receptive to US pressure. > It's also the same country whose president commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence down to 7 years. The same country who may have a different president come November with a history of calling the Assange case a priority. Why would anyone feel safe relying on the luck of the draw of the president at any given time to get out of what was an initial utterly extreme sentence? > But what will it take to stop the rhetoric about the U.S. wanting to lock him up and throw away the key? When the US stops sentencing people to 35 years like with Chelsea Manning's initial sentence, and there's been a long period without e.g. illegal rendition flights, when Guantanamo Bay has been closed for a few decades and no new camps have taken it's place etc. Maybe when a couple of generations have passed, in other words.
- ahf8Aithaex7Nai 2y ago
  I am really glad that your government is gradually losing influence and power. I wouldn't have expected it 20 years ago, but I will probably live to see you completely lose your global hegemony and your fantasies of power become nothing more than embarrassing, self-castrating nostalgia, just like in the former colonial powers of Europe.
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    > will probably live to see you completely lose your global hegemony and your fantasies of power become nothing more than embarrassing, self-castrating nostalgia And then you'll enjoy more experiences of aggressively-expansionist governments, Houthi-like groups, and the equivalent of Haitian gangs and Sudanese militias, all over the world, fighting to advance their leaders' own narrow parochial desires wherever they think they can get away with it. They'll be using WhatsApp, Starlink, and cheap drones in their efforts, and enlisting like-minded allies. You'll find yourself looking back wistfully on the days of the Pax Americana, which for nearly 80 years has maintained a flawed but workable rules-based international order. That's even granting that the U.S. has done some bad things — on occasion, very bad things — in furtherance of its own perceived interests and those of some of its powerful interest groups.
    - WanderPanda 2y ago
      This! The US hegemony is flawed but: 1. There is no other country (not even close) that could be trusted with that amount of power (especially considering size) 2. Held up the (illusion of) “neutral” international institutions like the UN. They barely worked in the presence of a “benevolent” power, and will probably completely lose relevance to anarchy and the “right of the stronger” (on local levels), shall the US hegemony subside. Then on the other hand the US has started undermining their own most important principles: 1. 1971: Removing the gold convertability from the $ 2. 9/11: Starting to spy on each and everyone, eastern germany/soviet-style 3. Removing personal freedoms during COVID (not as severe as other countries, though) If it weren’t for silicon valley, the us would already look like a stagnating state where the economy is mainly driven by government spending. The problem is larping EU socialism will only yield even worse results in the US, since the government seems to be even less efficient. On the other hand the US is also one of the few countries that have turned around non-violently in the past. Attractiveness for international talent is still immense. So with a few adjustments I’m pretty sure it could be turned around
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  > He directly participated in stealing a bunch of classified information with Manning. and a good thing that was too, exposing our government's wrongdoing and lies
  - colechristensen 2y ago
    >and a good thing that was too, exposing our government's wrongdoing and lies What exactly of value was exposed?
belorn 2y ago
A few months ago in Sweden we had a major news story about a journalist who went under cover as an employee of a political party media department in order to follow a story. They explicitly took the job in order to leak information which their employee contract disallowed. They will, practically guarantied, not get in legal problems for it. People occasionally talk about this tactic as being a bit of a morally grey zone but under cover journalism with an intention of leaking information (if they get their hands on it) do happen from times to times.
- cbsmith 2y ago
  > They will, practically guarantied, not get in legal problems for it. Maybe things are different in Sweden, but violating an employee contract seems like a civil matter, not criminal, which is hugely different.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  > They explicitly took the job in order to leak information which their employee contract disallowed. I get the feeling if they'd joined the Swedish military and leaked national secrets, things would not have worked out so nicely for them. That's what Assange was accused of, not being in the military, but actively conspiring with the leaker to steal the documents rather than merely receiving the leaked documents.
  - KennyBlanken 2y ago
    Further, if that reporter claimed to be all "free the secrets!" ...but when handed documents from one another foreign government refuses to publish them and then it becomes obvious that the leaks were targeting liberal Swedish politicians facing election versus conservative candidates favored by that same one particular other foreign government... I don't understand why people don't see wikileaks as anything other than a proxy Russian foreign intelligence operation.
    - smsm42 2y ago
      If they leak info against our opponents, they are free speech heroes and paladins of truth. If they leak info against our party, they are filthy dirty spies. I don't understand why people can't see it.

bigfudge 2y ago

They've been ruining his life for longer than five years haven't they?

highcountess 2y ago
~14 years now
- CRConrad 2y ago
  At least half of that he did entirely on his own. Nobody told him to hole up in the Bolivian (wasn't it?) embassy for seven years.

smdyc1 2y ago

Much beloved? Maybe in your circle, certainly nobody i know considered him beloved. I mean, the guy admitted to a room full of journalists he was happy to burn a bunch of Afghan informants. The guy is a narcissistic wanker who put lives at risk.