3 ms·

I'd encourage people to read this excellent piece in the London Review of Books by someone who was contracted to ghostwrite Assange's autobiography, and who ini

I'd encourage people to read this excellent piece in the London Review of Books by someone who was contracted to ghostwrite Assange's autobiography, and who initially felt very sympathetic towards the aims of Assange and Wikileaks: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-hagan/ghosting https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-hagan/ghost... I found it very insightful and nuanced when it comes to Assange and his motivations, presenting him as neither hero nor villain, but someone who started something that he couldn't really handle.

shoo 2y ago
that is indeed an excellent read, thank you for sharing it
- frereubu 2y ago
  You're welcome. I dread these Assange threads on HN because they often seem to devolve into people shouting past each other, and this is the most thoughtful piece, with direct and lengthy access to Assange, that I've read.
pradn 2y ago
Andrew O’Hagan's article on Assange is rather famous, not only for its contents, but also for being 25,000+ words in a magazine that still pays per word. The LRB can pull it off because they're subsidized by the editor's family funds.
KennyBlanken 2y ago
[flagged]
- frereubu 2y ago
  This is exactly the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that I find really difficult. You could have stated this very differently instead of using sarcasm and we might have agreed on some points, but "is an odd way of saying" is so unnecessary. Did you read the article? You may find quite a bit to agree with. I personally have a pretty low opinion of Assange, and the article talks quite a bit about his narcissistic tendencies. Your language also doesn't allow for the fact that although his actions might have helped Russian intelligence, it may well not be that he sat down at some point and explicitly said "right, how can I help the Russian government?" There's some fantastic literature about how well-meaning people can get dragged in some terrible directions, like Into That Darkness about Franz Stangl, the commandant at Treblinka. I'd encourage you to rethink the way you phrase things like this if you want to have substantive debate. If you just want to shout at people, fill your boots, but I'm not going to engage with it.
- user_7832 2y ago
  I don't doubt he's been partial/sympathetic to the Russians. But, would you rather: a. Piss of both of the most capable countries capable of spying and "mysteriously" bumping people off, or b. Accept a deal with the devil to not die, and make up any excuse afterwards to justify your actions? The US unfortunately isn't a very nice or fair country to piss off when they go about bullying (even Assange's treatments have been anything but "fair and above board"), so I'm not sure he ever even had a chance. (Assuming he wanted to live, of course.)
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  I'm sorry. did you read the links you shared? the vox article says one contradicting thing after another. "shamir got all the cable leaks... when shamir asked for the cable leaks he was denied" uh? "never leaked russian documents ... assange first contacted him to leak Russian documents in russia" uh? I won't even click the second one.
  - allemagne 2y ago
    EDIT: the first article from the parent comment was https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia... Those aren't quotes from the article and there is no reasonable way to read those contradictions from what's being said. You seem to be really badly misunderstanding this specific passage: >"Shamir was also a longtime friend of Julian Assange, who tasked him with helping to disseminate WikiLeaks documents in his native Russia in early 2010. >“Shamir has a years-long friendship with Assange, and was privy to the contents of tens of thousands of US diplomatic cables months before WikiLeaks made public the full cache,” James Ball, a former WikiLeaks staffer, wrote at the Guardian the next year. “Shamir aroused the suspicion of several WikiLeaks staffers — myself included — when he asked for access to all cable material concerning ‘the Jews,’ a request which was refused.” >The first thing Shamir did with the documents was hand some off to Russian Reporter magazine, a Kremlin-friendly newsweekly." I.e. Shamir, a Wikileaks employee, had access to some leaked US diplomatic cables. He was refused additional access. No contradiction. This is also the only time that Assange's early relationship with Shamir was ever mentioned (read the article for yourself, find where I'm wrong) and note how it mentions leaking US documents in Russia. There is no mention anywhere in the article of Shamir "leaking Russian documents in Russia", or what Assange "first contacted" Shamir for. There is also NOWHERE in the article that claims that Assange "never leaked Russian documents". You're free to disagree with the article, but you're absolutely incorrect and completely misleading about its contents.
tootie 2y ago
Or like read the Mueller Report which paints him squarely as a villain. He worked with Russia to influence the 2016 election in Trump's favor and then tried to blame Seth Rich. I absolutely cannot fathom how so many people still worship him. He has done some good here and there, but the benefits of things he's leaked are vastly overstated and the harm he has done is very, very real.
- dmix 2y ago
  > He worked with Russia to influence the 2016 election in Trump's favor That is not at all a conclusion you can safely take from the Mueller report. Which makes me question whether you actually read it or you consumed it entirely via 2nd hand media reports like Buzzfeed and WaPo. There is no evidence he was colluding with them, he had encrypted conversations with a GRU agent who had concealed his identity as a hacker, contents of the messages which were never revealed. Even if he eventually did learn the source why should Wikileaks care where a goldmine of documents comes from? As long as they are authentic. There’s more than enough motivation for Wikileaks to leak docs by a figurehead of the post 9/11 nation security state, regardless of RU or Trump or petty politics. I’m sure if the NSA sent him documents about some geopolitical matter they’d leak them too. > and then tried to blame Seth Rich He never once directly implicated Seth Rich, the worst thing he did was during a TV interview made a reference to Seths murder and then merely declined to talk about it more: >> Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange said "we don't comment on who our sources are". Subsequent statements by WikiLeaks emphasized that the organization was not naming Rich as a source. He also claimed he had physical proof of an inside job, which is entirely possible he was completely taken by the GRU agent who manufactured plausible sounding proof and Assange bought it. These agents are extremely clever and capable, and Assange was in a very poor mental state at the time. His only true ‘crime’ is not talking about Seth after to appease crazies on the left who see RU conspiracy around every corner nor tamed the right looking to fan the flames on US gov conspiracy theories. but let’s be honest, that wouldn’t have stopped the hyper partisans on either side. They don’t care either way. All they want is black/white villains.
  - mikrotikker 2y ago
lmm 2y ago
That was indeed interesting, although his claim that the rape charges were a separate issue that had nothing to do with the US trying to get hold of him, and that Assange made a mistake by not going to Sweden to fight them, has aged pretty badly.

shoo 2y ago

that is indeed an excellent read, thank you for sharing it

frereubu 2y ago
You're welcome. I dread these Assange threads on HN because they often seem to devolve into people shouting past each other, and this is the most thoughtful piece, with direct and lengthy access to Assange, that I've read.

pradn 2y ago

Andrew O’Hagan's article on Assange is rather famous, not only for its contents, but also for being 25,000+ words in a magazine that still pays per word. The LRB can pull it off because they're subsidized by the editor's family funds.

KennyBlanken 2y ago

[flagged]

frereubu 2y ago
This is exactly the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that I find really difficult. You could have stated this very differently instead of using sarcasm and we might have agreed on some points, but "is an odd way of saying" is so unnecessary. Did you read the article? You may find quite a bit to agree with. I personally have a pretty low opinion of Assange, and the article talks quite a bit about his narcissistic tendencies. Your language also doesn't allow for the fact that although his actions might have helped Russian intelligence, it may well not be that he sat down at some point and explicitly said "right, how can I help the Russian government?" There's some fantastic literature about how well-meaning people can get dragged in some terrible directions, like Into That Darkness about Franz Stangl, the commandant at Treblinka. I'd encourage you to rethink the way you phrase things like this if you want to have substantive debate. If you just want to shout at people, fill your boots, but I'm not going to engage with it.
user_7832 2y ago
I don't doubt he's been partial/sympathetic to the Russians. But, would you rather: a. Piss of both of the most capable countries capable of spying and "mysteriously" bumping people off, or b. Accept a deal with the devil to not die, and make up any excuse afterwards to justify your actions? The US unfortunately isn't a very nice or fair country to piss off when they go about bullying (even Assange's treatments have been anything but "fair and above board"), so I'm not sure he ever even had a chance. (Assuming he wanted to live, of course.)
1oooqooq 2y ago
I'm sorry. did you read the links you shared? the vox article says one contradicting thing after another. "shamir got all the cable leaks... when shamir asked for the cable leaks he was denied" uh? "never leaked russian documents ... assange first contacted him to leak Russian documents in russia" uh? I won't even click the second one.
- allemagne 2y ago
  EDIT: the first article from the parent comment was https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia... Those aren't quotes from the article and there is no reasonable way to read those contradictions from what's being said. You seem to be really badly misunderstanding this specific passage: >"Shamir was also a longtime friend of Julian Assange, who tasked him with helping to disseminate WikiLeaks documents in his native Russia in early 2010. >“Shamir has a years-long friendship with Assange, and was privy to the contents of tens of thousands of US diplomatic cables months before WikiLeaks made public the full cache,” James Ball, a former WikiLeaks staffer, wrote at the Guardian the next year. “Shamir aroused the suspicion of several WikiLeaks staffers — myself included — when he asked for access to all cable material concerning ‘the Jews,’ a request which was refused.” >The first thing Shamir did with the documents was hand some off to Russian Reporter magazine, a Kremlin-friendly newsweekly." I.e. Shamir, a Wikileaks employee, had access to some leaked US diplomatic cables. He was refused additional access. No contradiction. This is also the only time that Assange's early relationship with Shamir was ever mentioned (read the article for yourself, find where I'm wrong) and note how it mentions leaking US documents in Russia. There is no mention anywhere in the article of Shamir "leaking Russian documents in Russia", or what Assange "first contacted" Shamir for. There is also NOWHERE in the article that claims that Assange "never leaked Russian documents". You're free to disagree with the article, but you're absolutely incorrect and completely misleading about its contents.

tootie 2y ago

Or like read the Mueller Report which paints him squarely as a villain. He worked with Russia to influence the 2016 election in Trump's favor and then tried to blame Seth Rich. I absolutely cannot fathom how so many people still worship him. He has done some good here and there, but the benefits of things he's leaked are vastly overstated and the harm he has done is very, very real.

dmix 2y ago
> He worked with Russia to influence the 2016 election in Trump's favor That is not at all a conclusion you can safely take from the Mueller report. Which makes me question whether you actually read it or you consumed it entirely via 2nd hand media reports like Buzzfeed and WaPo. There is no evidence he was colluding with them, he had encrypted conversations with a GRU agent who had concealed his identity as a hacker, contents of the messages which were never revealed. Even if he eventually did learn the source why should Wikileaks care where a goldmine of documents comes from? As long as they are authentic. There’s more than enough motivation for Wikileaks to leak docs by a figurehead of the post 9/11 nation security state, regardless of RU or Trump or petty politics. I’m sure if the NSA sent him documents about some geopolitical matter they’d leak them too. > and then tried to blame Seth Rich He never once directly implicated Seth Rich, the worst thing he did was during a TV interview made a reference to Seths murder and then merely declined to talk about it more: >> Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange said "we don't comment on who our sources are". Subsequent statements by WikiLeaks emphasized that the organization was not naming Rich as a source. He also claimed he had physical proof of an inside job, which is entirely possible he was completely taken by the GRU agent who manufactured plausible sounding proof and Assange bought it. These agents are extremely clever and capable, and Assange was in a very poor mental state at the time. His only true ‘crime’ is not talking about Seth after to appease crazies on the left who see RU conspiracy around every corner nor tamed the right looking to fan the flames on US gov conspiracy theories. but let’s be honest, that wouldn’t have stopped the hyper partisans on either side. They don’t care either way. All they want is black/white villains.
- mikrotikker 2y ago

lmm 2y ago

That was indeed interesting, although his claim that the rape charges were a separate issue that had nothing to do with the US trying to get hold of him, and that Assange made a mistake by not going to Sweden to fight them, has aged pretty badly.