Assange is a bit of a scumbag, but unrelatedly, his efforts for freedom of information should not land him in US torture prisons like many others.
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
170 points (100.0% liked)
World News
1036 readers
28 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
His efforts for freedom of information that align with his political motives. He lost all credibility when it became clear he was picking and choosing. He certainly chooses interesting times to show restraint. And of course he swears the kremlin didn’t give wikileaks the DNC’s emails. And Trump totally didn’t offer him a pardon to say Russia had nothing to do with it.
I am pro transparency, and there was a time when I respected Assange and Wikileaks. But it has become clear he does what is good for him and his politics. That is not the job of a transparency-centric site. You publish everything after it’s vetted. Even if it’s bad for “your team.”
Does he deserve to be in prison for the rest of his life?
I didn’t say that. I said I think he’s full of shit and doesn’t believe in transparency if it doesn’t align with his politics.
And what does that have to do with the fact that he faces over 100 years in prison?
So I literally can’t talk about anything other than exactly the topic of this article? I am discussing the core thing he did to even be noticed. I am also responding directly to someone painting him as a morally righteous prisoner of conscience.
His moral righteousness is irrelevant to the fact that he is being persecuted for journalism.
It’s not like the core thing he did to even be noticed is relevant.
The fuck does this mean? The core thing he did to be noticed is also the thing that's getting him persecuted.
I feel like you’re not allowing two statements to be true.
-
Assange is being doggedly pursued by the US for leaking state secrets. No I do not think he deserves to be punished for information he released like with Afghanistan. I think we are better for it and clearly this is the US making an example of him. Obviously we all knew he would be pursued, but again, I think that was the morally right thing to do, and I believe in protecting whistleblowers
-
I also take umbrage with any attempts to make him out to be a good person or in any way virtuous, which is what the comment I responded to did. He isn’t. He had my support when he was standing for transparency, and he lost it when it became clear he saw leaks as a tool for his political preferences and friends.
We can hold these two ideas at the same time.
As for the sexual assault allegations against him, I have no clue what to think the waters are too muddy there. So I just don’t engage that generally.
I also take umbrage with any attempts to make him out to be a good person or in any way virtuous, which is what the comment I responded to did.
Did we read the same comment? They literally called him a scumbag. 🙄
“A bit of a scumbag” dilutes the fact that he failed at the very mission people praise him for. I am happy to admit that I am was somewhat off in my initial reading of their comment. I do not want to get bogged down in that.
The point is that Assange was a useful tool for a certain brand of politics and certain parties. We all need to recognize that. “He’s a bit of a scum bag” isn’t even close to the reality of how nefarious his actions were.
Do we need to recognize that while he's fighting for his freedom? Maybe that can wait?
The truth is important. Isn’t that the whole point of Wikileaks?
Journalistic freedom is also important, and also the point of Wikileaks.
Unfortunately, what we actually learned is that WikiLeaks existed for him to help those he politically agrees with. There is a reason every self-respecting journalist who worked with WikiLeaks has since walked away and no, it is not because of the US government going after him. It’s because WikiLeaks wasn’t engaging in transparency and quality journalism.
Interesting assertion. Also irrelevant, because journalism doesn't have to be neutral. Plenty of journalists have an agenda, in fact I'd argue most of them do and the idea of impartial journalism is something some journalists made up to promote their own agendas.
I didn’t say journalists had to be neutral. I never used the word neutral. Objectivity is a myth and impossible to obtain.
I’m saying these journalists didn’t want to work for a flagrantly partisan organization
that lied about its commitment to transparency.
If you want to be a mouthpiece for Putin and conservative talking points, then you need to not pretend you’re evenhanded and egalitarian with your leaks and publication.
The only people who don't pretend to be evenhanded and egalitarian are, like, indie communist zines. This is just a problem with the industry as a whole - everyone pretends to be neutral, even though literally no one is. That's not something unique to Assange, so kinda irrelevant imo
So you don’t agree that the entire (claimed) raison d’être of wikileaks was that they were a haven for whistleblowers to bring their information to be vetted by quality journalists and released to the broader public, regardless of the political leanings of the information or people involved?
I agree with you that we should not be thrusting that mandate on outlets. But that’s not what happened. WikiLeaks claimed to be a beacon of transparency. That is a bar they set for themselves. I don’t care if they are “biased“ or whatever, I care that their job is to release information (their own mandate) and then they withhold it when it isn’t convenient for Assange’s politics.
Again, all media outlets claim to be beacons of transparency. They all set this bar for themselves. Everyone claims they are fair and balanced. That's just the industry and everyone in it.
Why, exactly, do you care that information was withheld? Are you just mad about false advertising?
Oh come on are you seriously going to play dumb now? WikiLeaks had a very specific purpose and goal. You cannot possibly compare it to a standard news outlet. You are really stretching things here. This has become a total waste of time.
Journalism is journalism. Trying to frame WikiLeaks as somehow different from journalism is just US propaganda and it's the basis for Assange facing over 100 years in prison.
moral righteousness is irrelevant to the fact that he is being persecuted for journalism.
I think the question is, when does the line between journalist and espionage intersect?
Does his state sponsored participation in election interference count as journalism? Did his misinformation campaign during the Catalan independence movement count as journalism? How about the attempt to bribe the Trump administration for the ambassador seat to Australia?
There's a reason every serious journalist that Assange utilized to launch wikileaks has not only abandoned the project, but has accused Assange of financial fraud, miss handling information, and endangering their sources.
I don't think Julian Assange is a journalist, I think he just likes being famous, and at one point journalism was a way to do that. I don't think he should be in jail for the rest of his life, but I also don't think he deserves Carte Blanche for everything he's done based on his prior "journalistic integrity".
There’s a reason every serious journalist that Assange utilized to launch wikileaks has not only abandoned the project, but has accused Assange of financial fraud, miss handling information, and endangering their sources.
Yeah, because they'd be hunted down by the US government right alongside Assange.
Most of the early members of wikileaks left before the first leaks pertaining to the US. Wikileaks original focus was to expose authoritarian governments in the Middle East, ex Soviet block, and primarily China's actions in Tibet. John Young, one of the founders actually left the group after accusing Assange of being a CIA plant after Assange wanted to do a multimillion fund raising drive.
The largest group to leave was before the 2010 Iraq leak, when the actual journalist at wikileaks warned Assange that the batches had not been properly redacted, and he published them anyway.
Fear for their source's safety actually led wikileak's security team to steal data from wikileaks and keep the data encrypted until Assange agreed to improve opsec. Assange ended up kicking them off the team, and they ended up having to delete the data.
I would really suggest reading what his early colleagues thought about his work, it really gives a lot of perspective about how poorly wikileaks was actually run, and how shady of a character Assange is.
Again, I'm not condoning life in prison. I just don't think he's the titan of ethics and moral integrity that people make him out to be. And he shouldn't be immune to prosecution for the unethical and illegal activities he committed outside the scope of legitimate journalism.
It sounds like you are, in fact, saying he should be persecuted for the 2010 Iraq leak.
Lol, I think you like to make assumptions that fulfill your biases. My response was simply an example of how his public image and his personal actions differ. Even if the release was sloppy and he may have potentially compromised his sources, it was still an act of journalism.
The acts that I believe to be outside the credible scope of journalism consist of misinformation campaigns in Spain, the election interference, and the bribe offered to the trump administration for the ambassador seat to Australia.
I can't really see how any of those actions are defensible for someone who considers themselves a journalist.
Sorry, I assumed we were still talking about his extradition. I didn't realize we had gone off topic.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not a single non US citizen should be extradited to the US. The US has the worst prison system and punishments outside of some really cruel regimes. They also refuse to work with international criminal courts.
Besides I'm pretty sure the guy only committed a crime in Sweden and not the US.
Can you really blame the man for picking sides after all the US has done to him personally over the years?
Yes. Wikileaks is supposed to be a tool of transparency. Not a tool for his political revenge.
I'm not saying I condone what he did, but I can understand it from his perspective. I'd probably do the same thing if there were a country responsible for ruining my life and health and I had the information to inflict some damage.
I am not saying I condone what he did
I’m not sure what we are debating/discussing. If you’re going to claim you are a bastion of transparency and information for the general public, then no, you can’t weaponize your site and omit politically damaging information about political groups you agree with/are aligned with.
That’s not just revenge against the US. That’s failing to provide the transparency you claim to stand for. He chose to obscure information based on his own whims. How is that not an issue?
Wikileaks had their own leak and it was a very interesting read.
@BolexForSoup just to be clear are you saying that journalists with a political or ideological slant should not be afforded the same protections as other journalists?
load more comments
(3 replies)
I'd say since the first full year of him living in an embassy ended, we can't be justified to call him a scumbag.
Other than that - his sense of humor in the NetBSD fortune files and other traces in the Internet maybe sucks, but he's a better role model than Snowden (whose life is somehow much easier, which is suspicious really).
load more comments
(1 replies)
thats what being a dissident gets you in the us.
may there be mercy on his soul if he even gets extradited.
not even in the US
Luckily political dissidents don’t need to fear for their life/freedom in the west, ow wait.
Btw what is up with those rape charges, or did Sweden conveniently drop them the moment Assange was pulled from that embassy?
"On 12 August 2015, Swedish prosecutors announced that the statute of limitations had expired for three of the allegations against Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy. The investigation into the rape allegation was also dropped by Swedish authorities on 19 May 2017 because of Assange's asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.[5][6] Assange said in these proceedings that he feared he would ultimately be extradited to the United States if he were sent to Sweden.
In May 2019, the Swedish Prosecution Authority reopened the investigation against Assange. The prosecutors expressed the intent to extradite Assange from the United Kingdom after he served his 50-week prison sentence for skipping bail.[7] In June 2019, the Uppsala District Court denied a request to detain Assange, thereby preventing his extradition to Sweden.
As of 19 November 2019 the prosecution dropped the case because "the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed" although they were confident in the complainant.[8]"
It was a rhetorical question, but yes, April 12: dragged out of embassy, November 19: Sweden drops charges. And soon thereafter America suddenly says they would like to extradite him to the US even though they denied this for years while Assange was in the embassy.
Honestly, I skimmed this title and thought it said he was found in a ditch. I’m surprised he has lasted this long.
Too high profile for the ditch... Right now. He gonna get gulag like navlny until the regime is comfortable to dispose of him
He ran out the clock for the rape charge against him in Sweden? What a scumbag.
Afaik the charges were just a tool fabricated to be used against him.
He exposed US war crimes and therefore they made him an enemy of the state and want to make an example out of him, to show others that when going against the US you have no rights - they can torture you, imprison you forever, etc.
Afaik the charges were just a tool fabricated to be used against him.
Yes, that's a very popular conspiracy theory among his online supporters. It's founded in literally no material evidence of any kind, but that's never stopped a conspiracy theory from gaining traction.
Afaik the charges were just a tool fabricated to be used against him.
It wouldn't surprise me if the US did something like this, but considering the rampant history of powerful men in media/tech having a penchant of utilizing their power to sexually assault women, and the fact that there have been multiple reports from people working for wikileaks reporting him for sexual harassment..... I dont really doubt that he did sexually assault someone.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Remember the US did not seek extradition for the 2013 leaks he coursed Chelsey manning into getting him, it wasn't until he conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election that the US decided to seek extradition.
Page 44 of the Muller Report In order to expand its interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the GRU units transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton Campaign to WikiLeaks. GRU officers used both the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas to communicate with WikiLeaks through Twitter private messaging and through encrypted channels, including possibly through WikiLeaks’s private communication system.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-exclusive-documents/index.html Despite being confined to the embassy while seeking safe passage to Ecuador, Assange met with Russians and world-class hackers at critical moments, frequently for hours at a time. He also acquired powerful new computing and network hardware to facilitate data transfers just weeks before WikiLeaks received hacked materials from Russian operatives.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Lawyers for Julian Assange have launched what could be his final bid to avoid extradition to the US to face trial over leaking military secrets.
Some supporters of Assange started gathering outside court hours ahead of Tuesday's hearing, waving placards featuring the words "Drop the charges".
Originally from Australia, Mr Assange's mammoth legal battle began in 2010 when Wikileaks disclosed huge numbers of confidential military files from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - including footage showing a United States helicopter gunning down civilians in Baghdad.
Two years later, a British judge ruled that while the US had shown it had a legitimate criminal case against Mr Assange, he could not be transferred because he may try to harm himself.
At this week's hearing, Mr Assange's lawyers are asking for permission to challenge the extradition order signed by the then UK home secretary Priti Patel almost two years ago.
Nick Vamos, the former head of extradition at the Crown Prosecution Service, said US Marshals could arrive in London within days if the High Court throws the case out.
The original article contains 730 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
view more: next ›