4 ms·

Why? To punish and deter. He exposed terrible things done by large powers, therefore he was persecuted absolutely.

Wytwwww 2y ago
Sure that's obvious (or not... depending on one's political views), but there must be some legal justification. Or can they put someone in permanent solitary confinement without giving any reason at all in Britain? I'm reading at some sites that this isn't really true and that he wasn't literally held in a 2x3m cell for 23 hours every day. Although it's not very clear what were the actual conditions. edit: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2019/11/un-expert-torture-sounds-alarm-again-julian-assanges-lifemay-be-risk#:~:text=Assange%20had%20to%20be%20transferred,bail%20terms%20in%202012%2C%20Mr https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2019/11/un-expert-to.... it's very vague and unspecific though..
- lp0_on_fire 2y ago
  Turns out when governments toss around the words "spy" and "espionage" freely and without regard to their actual definitions they can get away with things like this.
- account42 2y ago
  > Or can they put someone in permanent solitary confinement without giving any reason at all in Britain? Well, who is gong to stop them?
qsdf38100 2y ago
He didn’t expose anything significant on Russia, for some reason.
- exe34 2y ago
  did he raid the fsb servers or the nsa? maybe it's because of the source?
  - qsdf38100 2y ago
    His role in Wikileaks wasn't to personally raid servers. He was receiving leaks that were delivered to him via his platform, and then he decided what was worth publishing. Either he never had been handed any significant leaks on Russia, either he chosed to not publish them.
    - exe34 2y ago
      So for every crime by one state, he has to publish one from another state for balance? Is it not enough that one state committed a crime and he reported it?
      - Beldin 2y ago
        The allegations I've seen floating around is that he deliberately withheld certain types of leaks. Thereby making Wikileaks no longer neutral, but politically-motivated. > Is it not enough that one state committed a crime and he reported it? It depends on what "it" would be enough for... but if he indeed actively surpressed damaging info leaked to him on par with the stuff he has released, yeah, that makes matters complex. Another criticism I've seen is that the leaks did not do any redaction whatsoever - even when it clearly pertained to informants in war zones. For that, if the allegations are true, my view is simple: you shouldn't do that. And if you set up an infrastructure for leaking, it is reasonable to assume that you're capable of handling such an important and obviously necessary step. So "isn't it enough?" - no, it is more complicated than that.
        juliushuijnk 2y ago
        > you shouldn't do that. Never? I can easily come up with scenarios where I think you'd also make an exception; If he was a German journalist in 1940 and he discovered what really happened at concentration camps. I'd wager exposing those papers without any redaction would be acceptable. If you agree, then the rest is just about how you weigh certain crimes by the government, how many and what kind of names you expose, etc.
        2y ago
- A1kmm 2y ago
  Wikileaks has published things about Russia: https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/ https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/ There are a lot of countries they have never published anything on. They have a smaller number of large leaks, so that is not necessarily out of the ordinary. I think it is credible that Wikileaks were provided some documents from Russian state-sanctioned actors, who knew Wikileaks would publish them, and that the state-sanctioned actors did so to serve Russian interests. But the claim that Wikileaks as a whole is biased towards Russia doesn't seem likely.
  - qsdf38100 2y ago
    Things? Correct me if I'm wrong but you're linking to 1 single publication. It doesn't seem they have anything else about Russia. From a quick glance a it, it reveals that Russia have infrastructure to control and monitor who in Russia is accessing what over the internet. Looks like a rather weak, insignificant leak to me. Which is what I was saying to begin with.
    - peterashford 2y ago
      its obviously a conspiracy
      - qsdf38100 2y ago
        Have anything to bring to the discussion?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- illiac786 2y ago
  I don’t understand your point. One should get away with a crime because others are getting away with it? Even if Julian Assange was a Russian spy (which I highly doubt), what difference does it make regarding the crimes he exposed? You can’t diminish facts depending on who is telling them - as long as these are facts.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Could the reason be that no whistleblower came forward with files from Russia to Wikileaks? You're trying to make a point but missing the obvious. Besides. The US and Europe and so have fairly free media, so the Wikileaks revelations reached a wide audience. Russia does not have free media, so if there were any leaks like it, it wouldn't reach the Russians as much.
  - ziotom78 2y ago
    > Could the reason be that no whistleblower came forward with files from Russia to Wikileaks? You're trying to make a point but missing the obvious. Some people disagree with this, see https://x.com/joni_askola/status/1805628043760685317 https://x.com/joni_askola/status/1805628043760685317 and the whole thread
- Solololo 2y ago
  Russia doesn't need much external help in fumbling their data lol

Sure that's obvious (or not... depending on one's political views), but there must be some legal justification. Or can they put someone in permanent solitary confinement without giving any reason at all in Britain? I'm reading at some sites that this isn't really true and that he wasn't literally held in a 2x3m cell for 23 hours every day. Although it's not very clear what were the actual conditions. edit: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2019/11/un-expert-torture-sounds-alarm-again-julian-assanges-lifemay-be-risk#:~:text=Assange%20had%20to%20be%20transferred,bail%20terms%20in%202012%2C%20Mr https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2019/11/un-expert-to.... it's very vague and unspecific though..

lp0_on_fire 2y ago
Turns out when governments toss around the words "spy" and "espionage" freely and without regard to their actual definitions they can get away with things like this.
account42 2y ago
> Or can they put someone in permanent solitary confinement without giving any reason at all in Britain? Well, who is gong to stop them?

qsdf38100 2y ago

He didn’t expose anything significant on Russia, for some reason.

exe34 2y ago
did he raid the fsb servers or the nsa? maybe it's because of the source?
- qsdf38100 2y ago
  His role in Wikileaks wasn't to personally raid servers. He was receiving leaks that were delivered to him via his platform, and then he decided what was worth publishing. Either he never had been handed any significant leaks on Russia, either he chosed to not publish them.
  - exe34 2y ago
    So for every crime by one state, he has to publish one from another state for balance? Is it not enough that one state committed a crime and he reported it?
    - Beldin 2y ago
      The allegations I've seen floating around is that he deliberately withheld certain types of leaks. Thereby making Wikileaks no longer neutral, but politically-motivated. > Is it not enough that one state committed a crime and he reported it? It depends on what "it" would be enough for... but if he indeed actively surpressed damaging info leaked to him on par with the stuff he has released, yeah, that makes matters complex. Another criticism I've seen is that the leaks did not do any redaction whatsoever - even when it clearly pertained to informants in war zones. For that, if the allegations are true, my view is simple: you shouldn't do that. And if you set up an infrastructure for leaking, it is reasonable to assume that you're capable of handling such an important and obviously necessary step. So "isn't it enough?" - no, it is more complicated than that.
      - juliushuijnk 2y ago
        > you shouldn't do that. Never? I can easily come up with scenarios where I think you'd also make an exception; If he was a German journalist in 1940 and he discovered what really happened at concentration camps. I'd wager exposing those papers without any redaction would be acceptable. If you agree, then the rest is just about how you weigh certain crimes by the government, how many and what kind of names you expose, etc.
      - 2y ago
A1kmm 2y ago
Wikileaks has published things about Russia: https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/ https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/ There are a lot of countries they have never published anything on. They have a smaller number of large leaks, so that is not necessarily out of the ordinary. I think it is credible that Wikileaks were provided some documents from Russian state-sanctioned actors, who knew Wikileaks would publish them, and that the state-sanctioned actors did so to serve Russian interests. But the claim that Wikileaks as a whole is biased towards Russia doesn't seem likely.
- qsdf38100 2y ago
  Things? Correct me if I'm wrong but you're linking to 1 single publication. It doesn't seem they have anything else about Russia. From a quick glance a it, it reveals that Russia have infrastructure to control and monitor who in Russia is accessing what over the internet. Looks like a rather weak, insignificant leak to me. Which is what I was saying to begin with.
  - peterashford 2y ago
    its obviously a conspiracy
    - qsdf38100 2y ago
      Have anything to bring to the discussion?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
illiac786 2y ago
I don’t understand your point. One should get away with a crime because others are getting away with it? Even if Julian Assange was a Russian spy (which I highly doubt), what difference does it make regarding the crimes he exposed? You can’t diminish facts depending on who is telling them - as long as these are facts.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Could the reason be that no whistleblower came forward with files from Russia to Wikileaks? You're trying to make a point but missing the obvious. Besides. The US and Europe and so have fairly free media, so the Wikileaks revelations reached a wide audience. Russia does not have free media, so if there were any leaks like it, it wouldn't reach the Russians as much.
- ziotom78 2y ago
  > Could the reason be that no whistleblower came forward with files from Russia to Wikileaks? You're trying to make a point but missing the obvious. Some people disagree with this, see https://x.com/joni_askola/status/1805628043760685317 https://x.com/joni_askola/status/1805628043760685317 and the whole thread
Solololo 2y ago
Russia doesn't need much external help in fumbling their data lol