Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment(stundin.is)
stundin.is
Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment
https://stundin.is/grein/13627/key-witness-in-assange-case-admits-to-lies-in-indictment/
315 comments
Jesus, here I am thinking I pretty immune to the state propaganda machines. Yet what I read had me 100% convinced stress had tipped Assange had over the edge into paranoid delusional. If even half of what Nils Melzer says is true, Assange is one of the few participants in this saga behaving reasonably.
Are you saying there was no credible rape accusation?
There was no rape accusation, full stop.
Here are the allegations:
He had consensual sex, and the condom broke. He didn’t tell the woman after the fact, but she found it in the trash. She wanted him to get an HIV test. He refused. She tried to get the police to force him to get an HIV test.
To her dismay, they decided to charge him with rape. This is all in the UN special rapporteur’s report, and apparently uncontested by everyone involved.
Here are the allegations:
He had consensual sex, and the condom broke. He didn’t tell the woman after the fact, but she found it in the trash. She wanted him to get an HIV test. He refused. She tried to get the police to force him to get an HIV test.
To her dismay, they decided to charge him with rape. This is all in the UN special rapporteur’s report, and apparently uncontested by everyone involved.
I'm not an expert on Swedish law, however rape is often a crime that people lobby to not require the victim to ask for charges. aka, The police/prosecutors get to make that decision.
That's what I recall from an interview with Melzer a while back too. Don't recall the details though.
Yes.
What an absolute joke. FBI/CIA recruits a child molester to lie about Assange.
https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2015/09/25/siggi_the...
Who on earth isn’t asking at this point “Are we (US intel agencies) the baddies?”
https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2015/09/25/siggi_the...
Who on earth isn’t asking at this point “Are we (US intel agencies) the baddies?”
> are we the baddies
I'm quite torn. I feel like a dissonance in theory and practice is at play here. If you ask people about "American values" a lot of times you'll come up with things around freedom, liberty, in general individualism and protection from the "other" of tyrannical government. That's the theory. In practice, those individuals that make up U.S. intelligence agencies justify the dissonance between their tyrannical actions and their ideals by arguments such as "if it were the Russian/Chinese/Other on top things would be worse", etc. All boiling down to "necessary evils".
So, which is better, a tyrannical regime that professes values of liberty or a tyrannical regime that tacitly admits that it's tyrannical?
I feel like I may be betraying a bit too much of my lack of authority and competence on the subject, but there's something that has stuck with me as the central point of one of the sides at the end of the anime "Legends of the Galactic Heroes". SPOILER Paraphrasing: "Democracy may be just as bad for the people as autocracy, but at least in democracy the people deserve their fate".
I'm quite torn. I feel like a dissonance in theory and practice is at play here. If you ask people about "American values" a lot of times you'll come up with things around freedom, liberty, in general individualism and protection from the "other" of tyrannical government. That's the theory. In practice, those individuals that make up U.S. intelligence agencies justify the dissonance between their tyrannical actions and their ideals by arguments such as "if it were the Russian/Chinese/Other on top things would be worse", etc. All boiling down to "necessary evils".
So, which is better, a tyrannical regime that professes values of liberty or a tyrannical regime that tacitly admits that it's tyrannical?
I feel like I may be betraying a bit too much of my lack of authority and competence on the subject, but there's something that has stuck with me as the central point of one of the sides at the end of the anime "Legends of the Galactic Heroes". SPOILER Paraphrasing: "Democracy may be just as bad for the people as autocracy, but at least in democracy the people deserve their fate".
I think this is a false dichotomy all together. Staying true to the values you promised to defend does not mean you are automatically hand over the power to the next, much worse tyranny. If Assange would have gone free and unbothered the only real hard consequence for our governments would be a PR debacle (which arguably already happened). And a strong precedent that whistleblowers can blow their whistle without having their lives destroyed by tyranny.
That means more people can blow the whistle which should be no issue if you are the good ones and act ethically sound.
That means more people can blow the whistle which should be no issue if you are the good ones and act ethically sound.
> So, which is better [...]
Your juxtaposition is wrong in the first place, but yes, that is a common line of thought in rationalizing breaking the laws you are supposed to protect. On the contrary, it leads down the same road, so there isn't any practical difference.
Your juxtaposition is wrong in the first place, but yes, that is a common line of thought in rationalizing breaking the laws you are supposed to protect. On the contrary, it leads down the same road, so there isn't any practical difference.
> Who on earth isn’t asking at this point “Are we (US intel agencies) the baddies?”
There's a whole political party whose dominant position is to go "rah rah" and paint pretty much any criticism of these agencies as unpatriotic. It is still not a settled opinion in the US that waterboarding is torture.
There's a whole political party whose dominant position is to go "rah rah" and paint pretty much any criticism of these agencies as unpatriotic. It is still not a settled opinion in the US that waterboarding is torture.
So glad Barack Obama closed down Guantanamo and stopped the persecution of whistleblowers...oh wait
Obama did try to close Guantanamo several times early on in his term.
Congress passed amendments and bills that prohibited actually transferring detainees into the mainland US, because people went full NIMBY over “terrorists” in their backyard. The President’s power is not absolute.
Congress passed amendments and bills that prohibited actually transferring detainees into the mainland US, because people went full NIMBY over “terrorists” in their backyard. The President’s power is not absolute.
Also, he punished those responsible for the CIA torture program. Oh, wait, he didn't because "morale was so bad". Americans are a joke when it comes to their supposed values.
Truth and justice have no political affinity, stated nor implied.
Who exactly thinks the CIA does any good in the world?
I do, but such polarity isn’t the question. The real question is whether or not it’s appropriate to have an independently governed, extra-national paramilitary organization funded by the US but not limited by its laws or oversight. What we can and should do as citizens when that group renders monstrous, rogue injustice under your name and funding.
The polarity is the result of asking the question. It's not a presumption. Any basic knowledge of CIA history would conclude that they're a complete geopolitical and moral liability. Must be worth it to some maniacs though.
If you ask, "Do they do ANY good?", then yes. Organized criminals are also active in charity. A good question is, is the net effect positive, and are the downsides worth the upsides? Arguably not at all. Possibly in a severely restrained, reformed, governed manner.
JFK was quite bitter about his experience, for example, and suggested he wished to "splinter the C.I.A. into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."
https://www.nytimes.com/1966/04/25/archives/cia-maker-of-pol...
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/JFK-scatter...
JFK was quite bitter about his experience, for example, and suggested he wished to "splinter the C.I.A. into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."
https://www.nytimes.com/1966/04/25/archives/cia-maker-of-pol...
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/JFK-scatter...
I guess “I and most of my associates (including the ones who provided evidence against me) are pathological liars and criminals” is one kind of defense Assange can mount, but it doesn’t exactly build sympathy from at least this disinterested third-party reader.
Well, you invented the “most of my associates” part which is the substance of your smear, so you seem a bit disingenuous.
As for this fellow, intel agencies don’t get to both conjure lies AND claim guilt by association--with 5-year gap in the timing to boot--though surely they are not beneath trying. Surely the ends justify the means, right?
Quite the contrary to your misguided assertions, way back in 1993, Assange consulted for the Victoria Australia police to apprehend child molestors and pornography distributors.
As for this fellow, intel agencies don’t get to both conjure lies AND claim guilt by association--with 5-year gap in the timing to boot--though surely they are not beneath trying. Surely the ends justify the means, right?
Quite the contrary to your misguided assertions, way back in 1993, Assange consulted for the Victoria Australia police to apprehend child molestors and pornography distributors.
As they take Assange to court, they’ll have to mount credible legal arguments, present convincing evidence, and deal with counter-evidence / cross examination from the defense. As I said, “these witnesses who worked with my client have admitted to being liars” can sometimes be a good legal argument. But as a third party observer, it doesn’t seem like the slam-dunk vindication of Assange that some here are implying.
For better or worse, when bringing legal action against criminals, law enforcement sometimes needs to use evidence from other criminals and various kinds of unsavory characters.
For better or worse, when bringing legal action against criminals, law enforcement sometimes needs to use evidence from other criminals and various kinds of unsavory characters.
Well aware of the supposed "'need' to use unsavory characters," given Mueller's direct role in the Whitey Bulger affair [0]. I also recognize how aggressive and cavalier that behavior is in practice.
I appreciate your applied view of the legal system but it's reasonably likely that such derogatory evidence would not even be admitted in court.
This is middle-age justice with a modern veneer. Might as well torture confessions.
[0] https://technofog.substack.com/p/when-the-fbi-framed-four-in...
I appreciate your applied view of the legal system but it's reasonably likely that such derogatory evidence would not even be admitted in court.
This is middle-age justice with a modern veneer. Might as well torture confessions.
[0] https://technofog.substack.com/p/when-the-fbi-framed-four-in...
> Durham - now Special Counsel - still quietly looks for the truth
I have no insight into the body of the post, but LOL at this conclusion. Durham has been running his “investigation” now for more than two years and has found diddly squat. The sole product of the Durham investigation is breathless “just wait for the bombshell” punditry from disingenuous right-wing extremist pundits, the same crew who are convinced Hillary Clinton is running a child sex dungeon in a pizza parlor.
I have no insight into the body of the post, but LOL at this conclusion. Durham has been running his “investigation” now for more than two years and has found diddly squat. The sole product of the Durham investigation is breathless “just wait for the bombshell” punditry from disingenuous right-wing extremist pundits, the same crew who are convinced Hillary Clinton is running a child sex dungeon in a pizza parlor.
One person here strewing random, quite absurd theories about, and that's not me, nor the author of that in-depth historically factual piece. Not sure why you LOL at innocent people dying in prison, strikes me as a bit indecent.
We've reached max depth. The answer to your question is: it doesn't reflect at all on Assange, but it does shine quite a bright light directly on the FBI/CIA.
What is the “absurd theory”? I have not presented any “theories” at all.
The entire premise of the article under discussion in this thread is (1) “Assange associate who provided evidence to the FBI is an attenion-seeking sociopath and pathological liar” (everyone seems to more or less agree on this point), and (2) “you should believe what he just told a random journalist”.
A bunch of people are claiming here that this proves Assange is an oppressed freedom fighter or something. Personally I think it furthers a general impression that Assange and a bunch of other people in the Wikileaks orbit were liars and criminals with questionable agendas and methods.
The entire premise of the article under discussion in this thread is (1) “Assange associate who provided evidence to the FBI is an attenion-seeking sociopath and pathological liar” (everyone seems to more or less agree on this point), and (2) “you should believe what he just told a random journalist”.
A bunch of people are claiming here that this proves Assange is an oppressed freedom fighter or something. Personally I think it furthers a general impression that Assange and a bunch of other people in the Wikileaks orbit were liars and criminals with questionable agendas and methods.
Anyone still following along here may be interested in Marcy Wheeler’s close examination of the article under discussion, and how it relates to the Assange indictment:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/06/27/wikileaks-and-edward-s...
https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/06/27/wikileaks-and-edward-s...
That is a very poor analysis and it reads like someone is trying to fire cheap shots at strawmen.
> This is what Assange’s boosters are now staking his defense on: convincing you to accept the words of liars as truth.
The people this article calls "Assange boosters" aren't rallying behind this person or claiming that he's not lying now, they're saying: "This man is a pathological liar either way, can't be trusted, and thus is useless as a witness. This man's words carry precisely zero weight at this point, whatever he claims."
That blog entry goes on to address a bunch of other strawmen that resemble no argument made in this HN thread. I don't know why you would link it.
> This is what Assange’s boosters are now staking his defense on: convincing you to accept the words of liars as truth.
The people this article calls "Assange boosters" aren't rallying behind this person or claiming that he's not lying now, they're saying: "This man is a pathological liar either way, can't be trusted, and thus is useless as a witness. This man's words carry precisely zero weight at this point, whatever he claims."
That blog entry goes on to address a bunch of other strawmen that resemble no argument made in this HN thread. I don't know why you would link it.
Marcy Wheeler holds a PhD in comparative literature. Long blogging about Russiagate and addicted to close reading of legal documents without the least connection to law, Marcy has developed a steady following to which she misinterprets information and presents it as factual. You can see how stoopid this is right off the bat, couched in thousands of words:
A guy provided evidence, and then he said he lied, so he was telling the truth the first time. Thanks Marcy.
I do encourage you all to open the link and note how she writes in what is effectively a context-free grammar, presupposing conclusions, discussing casually about how they're correct, and linking back to more incorrect interpretations. The only way to even try to parse such nonsense is to click on endless links, which will eventually get you back to absolutely nothing. Like Lord of the Rings, except backwards and the characters travel in circles.
If you like this, Seth Abramson is similar, slightly more legal authority, equal intellectual weight.
A guy provided evidence, and then he said he lied, so he was telling the truth the first time. Thanks Marcy.
I do encourage you all to open the link and note how she writes in what is effectively a context-free grammar, presupposing conclusions, discussing casually about how they're correct, and linking back to more incorrect interpretations. The only way to even try to parse such nonsense is to click on endless links, which will eventually get you back to absolutely nothing. Like Lord of the Rings, except backwards and the characters travel in circles.
If you like this, Seth Abramson is similar, slightly more legal authority, equal intellectual weight.
I believe it should give you pause to adjust your point of view of the history.
Not that it'll matter if you're truly disinterested, but you posted a reply, so I guess you're not.
Not that it'll matter if you're truly disinterested, but you posted a reply, so I guess you're not.
Is there any way to vote against the current way the FBI/CIA operates? They are straight up coercing witnesses with fake testimonies to get a man prison, whose only crime was sharing the truth about the shameful inner workings of our American government.
No, and it is only going to get worse
Since the Inception of the FBI they have declared war on the citizenry, they have zero respect for the constitution, seeing it as a hurtle to their power.
They have done this under many names "War on crime", "War on Drugs", "War on Terror", and now "War on Domestic Extremism"
They are all covers for the same abuse of power. The only way to end it is a complete reversion of decades and decades of legal frameworks that allows all levels of government to ignore the constitution, pass laws clearly outside the powers of Article 2 Section 8, and removal of all accountability under immunity practices like "Qualified Immunity" and "Sovereign Immunity"
In sort it will take something on the order of another Constitutional Convention and a complete restructure of the federal government... So I doubt anything is going to change
Since the Inception of the FBI they have declared war on the citizenry, they have zero respect for the constitution, seeing it as a hurtle to their power.
They have done this under many names "War on crime", "War on Drugs", "War on Terror", and now "War on Domestic Extremism"
They are all covers for the same abuse of power. The only way to end it is a complete reversion of decades and decades of legal frameworks that allows all levels of government to ignore the constitution, pass laws clearly outside the powers of Article 2 Section 8, and removal of all accountability under immunity practices like "Qualified Immunity" and "Sovereign Immunity"
In sort it will take something on the order of another Constitutional Convention and a complete restructure of the federal government... So I doubt anything is going to change
And they only ever pursue the small targets.
Their failure to actually prove that justice will catch up with the big fish at the top of the crime, drugs, and terror chains has resulted in the domestic extremism problem.
The FBI's continued incompetency laid bare. Possibly by design.
Their failure to actually prove that justice will catch up with the big fish at the top of the crime, drugs, and terror chains has resulted in the domestic extremism problem.
The FBI's continued incompetency laid bare. Possibly by design.
[deleted]
Vote for politicians who will pass laws that dictate how they are to operate. Alternatively, if it is an avenue in your state, start a referendum to pass a state law calling for a Constitutional Convention (requires 34 states) to pass an amendment to deal with it.
We can’t even vote for politicians to fix potholes
This is why multi party systems work better than two party systems.
You can have a party dedicated to potholes if you have enough potholes, and you can have a party dedicated to agency oversight.
Both partys need to form coalitions to get any control, and need to compromise with each other or find win win situations for both parties.
The two party system has similar inside groups that sort of do this but it isnt pronounced, people still fall back to party lines when pushed (instead of their own views), and none are forced to compromise for their constituents. If they toe the party line theyre safe.
You can have a party dedicated to potholes if you have enough potholes, and you can have a party dedicated to agency oversight.
Both partys need to form coalitions to get any control, and need to compromise with each other or find win win situations for both parties.
The two party system has similar inside groups that sort of do this but it isnt pronounced, people still fall back to party lines when pushed (instead of their own views), and none are forced to compromise for their constituents. If they toe the party line theyre safe.
You can have multi parties with having single issue parties. Single issue parties are short sighted and can't respond to areas outside of a issue because the party isn't unified. You need some idology.
Very funny. In reality politicians have very little impact on the operation of these agencies who exist in the permanent bureaucracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKDdLWAdcbM
What would be the objective of the convention? "Let's update the Constitution to fix all thing things" sounds nice and all, but are there specific changes we want that "both sides" would be happy with?
A politician in conflict with the FBI and CIA?
Someone who makes comments such as "Deep State Department," "drain the Swamp," and "witchhunt"?
I'm having Trumble thinkinp of one. I Don't know aldbody offhand.
He would have to be backed by the US military to have a realistic shot against such powerful factions of the US oligarchy. Who's popular with the military?
Someone who makes comments such as "Deep State Department," "drain the Swamp," and "witchhunt"?
I'm having Trumble thinkinp of one. I Don't know aldbody offhand.
He would have to be backed by the US military to have a realistic shot against such powerful factions of the US oligarchy. Who's popular with the military?
No.
Not even an uncontrollable, unencumbered, outsider (Trump) critical of the FBI/CIA could make dent in 4 years.
The current US Senate majority leader once said: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”
Even the local police can get back at you.[1] The FBI has a budget 1000x greater.
https://citymonitor.ai/government/they-rely-you-being-intimi...
https://citymonitor.ai/government/they-rely-you-being-intimi...
I bet it’d be way worse after four years of Hillary. Like in Blackjack, sometimes a push is a win.
[deleted]
I continue to be amazed at the level of competence ascribed to this man. Donald Trump was, at heart, a lazy do-nothing in search of sycophancy and praise. He had zero inclination to actually change anything about how the government operates. All he cared about was that it was "his". And to the extent he was ever "critical" of agencies, it was only because they said something (or leaked something) that embarrased him.
All that "drain the swamp" bullshit? The fever swamp made that up. That was never Trump's gig, not once, from the day he showed up until he fled.
All that "drain the swamp" bullshit? The fever swamp made that up. That was never Trump's gig, not once, from the day he showed up until he fled.
I understand this is how you feel. However, your reply reeks of not only anger, but of hatred. You haven’t succeeded in identifying biographic or factual characteristics that even merit inspection. Navel gazing.
[deleted]
Saved me a reply. I appreciate that!
deadite(7)
Vote for the party which is most critical on them.
Currently Republicans though it used to be the Democrats.
Embedding undercover agitators in radical groups goes on all the time I'm sure. It's valuable but very easily abused, too.
Currently Republicans though it used to be the Democrats.
Embedding undercover agitators in radical groups goes on all the time I'm sure. It's valuable but very easily abused, too.
>Vote for the party which is most critical on them.
>Currently Republicans though it used to be the Democrats.
This statement shows the absurdity of a two-party political system. Voting for either party will not change anything. You need to vote for particular politicians, and if that's not possible, then there is no way at all for reform or change.
>Currently Republicans though it used to be the Democrats.
This statement shows the absurdity of a two-party political system. Voting for either party will not change anything. You need to vote for particular politicians, and if that's not possible, then there is no way at all for reform or change.
If you always reliably vote for (Party X) then paradoxically you are less likely to get your concerns addressed because they mainly need swing voters to win elections.
People who switch parties to vote for their pet issue probably have a disproportionate impact on the outcomes, because both parties gain an incentive to take a position on that issue.
People who switch parties to vote for their pet issue probably have a disproportionate impact on the outcomes, because both parties gain an incentive to take a position on that issue.
> If you always reliably vote for (Party X) then paradoxically you are less likely to get your concerns addressed because they mainly need swing voters to win elections
Nope, they need to mobilize their voters and demobilize the opposition. The media narrative about the importance of swing voters is greatly exaggerated, but it justifies election year media drama like showcasing “undecided voter” panels at debates.
Nope, they need to mobilize their voters and demobilize the opposition. The media narrative about the importance of swing voters is greatly exaggerated, but it justifies election year media drama like showcasing “undecided voter” panels at debates.
Add to this that the Trump administration had the chance to pardon Assange, and there was a strong and impassioned campaign from his partner (of which he shares 2 children) putting the case forward, but instead they pardoned actual war criminals. So I'm not sure the Republican administration/voter base really cares that much for JA either. The military have to visibly protect their own so they can assure the next gifted killing-machine asset that they can indulge in what they joined up for.
What Republican policies are you referring to? Dems at least have some subgroup willing to defund the police.
Why do you think the FBI embedded itself in a right-wing group and then cooked up the idea to kidnap Governor Whitmer?
You know, the FBI seems to have advanced notice and involvement with a lot of these kinds of plots...including the ones that actually go off. What is it that they're getting done with our tax money anyway?
You know, the FBI seems to have advanced notice and involvement with a lot of these kinds of plots...including the ones that actually go off. What is it that they're getting done with our tax money anyway?
For the furious downvoters, remember, the FBI habitually preys on the mentally ill to pull shit like this:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/fbi-entrap...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment...
https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/07/21/illusion-justice/human...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/fbi-entrap...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment...
https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/07/21/illusion-justice/human...
For someone who has not followed Assange news for a long time, what is the general accusation of his crimes? Is it just that he published secret material that he received from other sources?
Pretty much, he's been indicted for 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act, which yeah, is just for seeking/leaking confidential info. It's a huge attack on freedom of the press. The press has always been allowed to cover leaked stuff, the Espionage act has only been used against sources in the past, not reporters.
He's also facing a very minor charge (max 5 years in prison) for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for allegedly helping Manning attempt to hack a computer.
He's also facing a very minor charge (max 5 years in prison) for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for allegedly helping Manning attempt to hack a computer.
While I widely agree, if we're fair there's a difference between a Journalist covering leaked stuff and literally releasing the full unredacted documents to the public.
Otherwise I agree. His treatment comes down to nothing other than the fact the USA govt want to make it very, very clear that they are willing to totally destroy anyone's lives who dare publish the horrific things they're doing.
Otherwise I agree. His treatment comes down to nothing other than the fact the USA govt want to make it very, very clear that they are willing to totally destroy anyone's lives who dare publish the horrific things they're doing.
> if we're fair there's a difference between a Journalist covering leaked stuff and literally releasing the full unredacted documents to the public.
It was actually senior Guardian journalists who compromised the cables by publishing the password Assange had entrusted them with. That's what led to the unredacted copies being made available. Jonathan Cook has written about it here: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-26/guardian-assan...
> The Guardian book let the cat out of the bag. Once it gave away Assange’s password, the Old Bailey hearings have heard, there was no going back.
> Any security service in the world could now unlock the file containing the cables. And as they homed in on where the file was hidden at the end of the summer, Assange was forced into a desperate damage limitation operation. In September 2011 he published the unredacted cables so that anyone named in them would have advance warning and could go into hiding – before any hostile security services came looking for them.
> Yes, Assange published the cables unredacted but he did so – was forced to do so – by the unforgivable actions of Leigh and the Guardian.
It was actually senior Guardian journalists who compromised the cables by publishing the password Assange had entrusted them with. That's what led to the unredacted copies being made available. Jonathan Cook has written about it here: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-26/guardian-assan...
> The Guardian book let the cat out of the bag. Once it gave away Assange’s password, the Old Bailey hearings have heard, there was no going back.
> Any security service in the world could now unlock the file containing the cables. And as they homed in on where the file was hidden at the end of the summer, Assange was forced into a desperate damage limitation operation. In September 2011 he published the unredacted cables so that anyone named in them would have advance warning and could go into hiding – before any hostile security services came looking for them.
> Yes, Assange published the cables unredacted but he did so – was forced to do so – by the unforgivable actions of Leigh and the Guardian.
That is an extremely enlightening link.
Before the cables, there were the leaks on Afghanistan and Iraq that were unredacted.
Unsufficiently redacted, not unredacted. And mostly because the Pentagon refused to assist in the redacting.
Both the Iraq and Afghanistan leaks were redacted.
According even to Wikileaks, no, they were not redacted
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-wa...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-wa...
> WikiLeaks withheld around 15,000 reports to protect informants.
The accusation was that the Afghan documents were not sufficiently redacted, but they were redacted. The Iraq War documents, released later, were more heavily redacted.
The accusation was that the Afghan documents were not sufficiently redacted, but they were redacted. The Iraq War documents, released later, were more heavily redacted.
I thought the latter CFFA charge is what helps to enable to former? IANAL though so I could easily be wrong about this.
Basically helping to break into the computer system moves you out of the realm of journalist and into the realm of political enemy which now makes you vulnerable to espionage.
I think there isn’t much case law around this stuff though.
Basically helping to break into the computer system moves you out of the realm of journalist and into the realm of political enemy which now makes you vulnerable to espionage.
I think there isn’t much case law around this stuff though.
Are there any whistleblower protections in the US or why would they not apply to Assange?
The Espionage Act of 1917 is an extremely broad - and almost certainly unconstitutional - law passed during WWI, which gives the government broad power to go after anyone who publishes government secrets, including journalists. WWI was a low point in the history of freedom of expression in the US, and this law is a holdover from that era.
It's bad enough that there's a law on the books that allows the US government to go after American journalists, but in this case, the US government is asserting the right to prosecute a foreign journalist who operated from outside the US. As far as I understand it, if Julian Assange is extradited, he will not be able to argue in court that WikiLeaks' publications were in the public interest.
It's bad enough that there's a law on the books that allows the US government to go after American journalists, but in this case, the US government is asserting the right to prosecute a foreign journalist who operated from outside the US. As far as I understand it, if Julian Assange is extradited, he will not be able to argue in court that WikiLeaks' publications were in the public interest.
>>The Espionage Act of 1917 ... almost certainly unconstitutional
Good luck getting the Supreme Court agreeing with that. That greatest disappointment in the entire American Experiment has to be the US Supreme Court.
That was the founders greatest mistake, vesting soo much power in this single branch
Good luck getting the Supreme Court agreeing with that. That greatest disappointment in the entire American Experiment has to be the US Supreme Court.
That was the founders greatest mistake, vesting soo much power in this single branch
In a lot of ways, they vested practically nothing in that branch. It's by far the shortest section of the Constitution, which basically comes down to "Supreme Court: We oughta have one."
They made up their own powers. There's nothing about judicial review in the Constitution. They basically decided that they had that power, and everybody else agreed with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
So perhaps their greatest mistake wasn't vesting too much, but vesting too little. That left the court open to write its own job description. And also to create lifetime appointments, in theory to de-politicize it, but in practice to enshrine ideologies for many decades.
They made up their own powers. There's nothing about judicial review in the Constitution. They basically decided that they had that power, and everybody else agreed with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
So perhaps their greatest mistake wasn't vesting too much, but vesting too little. That left the court open to write its own job description. And also to create lifetime appointments, in theory to de-politicize it, but in practice to enshrine ideologies for many decades.
Assange is not a whistleblower, it's not like he worked for the army. He's a journalist.
That said, whistleblower protection rarely covers confidential information anyway.
That said, whistleblower protection rarely covers confidential information anyway.
No, that’s not illegal for somebody without a clearance.
The crime he’s charged with is that he was willing to (and I think did?) assist in breaking into a computer system to get the docs. I think under the CFAA. They have communication records of this because the person he was talking to was working for the USG.
Had he just been accepting docs as he was initially that would have been fine.
It’s hard to know the truth here though when nation state interests are at play. To what extent were the sex related charges against him political or flared up by nation state meddling?
At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange’s personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too.
So, who knows?
The crime he’s charged with is that he was willing to (and I think did?) assist in breaking into a computer system to get the docs. I think under the CFAA. They have communication records of this because the person he was talking to was working for the USG.
Had he just been accepting docs as he was initially that would have been fine.
It’s hard to know the truth here though when nation state interests are at play. To what extent were the sex related charges against him political or flared up by nation state meddling?
At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange’s personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too.
So, who knows?
>The crime he’s charged with is that he was willing to (and I think did?) assist in breaking into a computer system to get the docs. I think under the CFAA. They have communication records of this because the person he was talking to was working for the USG.
The US government claims this, but it's not been proven.
>At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange’s personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too.
This is just more Russiagate nonsense: https://pics.me.me/russiagate-explained-wikileaks-posted-the...
>To what extent were the sex related charges against him political or flared up by nation state meddling?
There are no charges. There never were any charges. There was an investigation and that's as far as it went.
>UPDATE GREAT NEWS: Swedish prosecutors are about to announce the dropping of the investigation into Julian Assange on sexual offence allegations. There never were any charges and the allegations were always nonsense, as detailed in the below article I wrote a month ago:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/05/no-rape-char...
The US government claims this, but it's not been proven.
>At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange’s personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too.
This is just more Russiagate nonsense: https://pics.me.me/russiagate-explained-wikileaks-posted-the...
>To what extent were the sex related charges against him political or flared up by nation state meddling?
There are no charges. There never were any charges. There was an investigation and that's as far as it went.
>UPDATE GREAT NEWS: Swedish prosecutors are about to announce the dropping of the investigation into Julian Assange on sexual offence allegations. There never were any charges and the allegations were always nonsense, as detailed in the below article I wrote a month ago:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/05/no-rape-char...
I think you’re overconfident in what you believe to be true based on the evidence that exists.
The Russian bit can be politically inconvenient for you and yet also be true.
The Russian bit can be politically inconvenient for you and yet also be true.
>The Russian bit can be politically inconvenient for you and yet also be true.
I'm not sure how it's politically inconvenient for me when I'm a registered Pacific Green.
People need to stop "thinking" in false dichotomies like left vs right or liberal vs. conservative. Astrology is six times smarter.
I'm not sure how it's politically inconvenient for me when I'm a registered Pacific Green.
People need to stop "thinking" in false dichotomies like left vs right or liberal vs. conservative. Astrology is six times smarter.
> I'm not sure how it's politically inconvenient for me when I'm a registered Pacific Green.
The West being less hostile to and more willing to collaborate with Russia is a frequent position promoted in Pacific Green circles; Russia being tied to active hostile activity against Western regimes is politically inconvenient to that message.
The West being less hostile to and more willing to collaborate with Russia is a frequent position promoted in Pacific Green circles; Russia being tied to active hostile activity against Western regimes is politically inconvenient to that message.
> The West being less hostile to and more willing to collaborate with Russia is a frequent position promoted in Pacific Green circles
This should be a frequent position promoted in sane circles. What is the alternative, promoting war between nuclear powers? A permanent campaign of bullying, hoping that the Russians never get into a position to do anything about it?
If the US can be close allies with the Saudis and the Israelis at the same time, they can collaborate with Russia.
This should be a frequent position promoted in sane circles. What is the alternative, promoting war between nuclear powers? A permanent campaign of bullying, hoping that the Russians never get into a position to do anything about it?
If the US can be close allies with the Saudis and the Israelis at the same time, they can collaborate with Russia.
> This should be a frequent position promoted in sane circles
The merits of the idea are irrelevant to whether an American politician corruptly colluding with Russia is politically inconvenient to those holding it.
The merits of the idea are irrelevant to whether an American politician corruptly colluding with Russia is politically inconvenient to those holding it.
>The West being less hostile to and more willing to collaborate with Russia is a frequent position promoted in Pacific Green circles
Pure DNC propaganda. Zero basis in reality.
Pure DNC propaganda. Zero basis in reality.
I assume by "Pacific Green" you mean the Pacific Green Party of Oregon. A quote from the party platform:
> We the People must: […] End the cold war with Iran and the resurgent cold war with Russia, forestall the emerging economic war with China, and withdraw from NATO.
You might argue that this doesn't require being more willing to collaborate with Russia but it absolutely means being less hostile to Russia.
https://www.pacificgreens.org/platform
> We the People must: […] End the cold war with Iran and the resurgent cold war with Russia, forestall the emerging economic war with China, and withdraw from NATO.
You might argue that this doesn't require being more willing to collaborate with Russia but it absolutely means being less hostile to Russia.
https://www.pacificgreens.org/platform
I had not heard of that political party. Those positions seem smart and reasonable for a country drowning in deficit spending.
Withdraw from NATO would be a good start.
The not-to-be-praised former President attempted troop drawdown from Germany, which was quickly reversed earlier this year.
Withdraw from NATO would be a good start.
The not-to-be-praised former President attempted troop drawdown from Germany, which was quickly reversed earlier this year.
[deleted]
Doesn’t have to be left vs. right.
Politically motivated reasoning can come from any party or person.
The comic’s content suggested some anti-Hillary sentiment, that paired with “Russiagate” suggested some pro-Bernie political lean, Green Party probably fits with that? Aren’t they more hard-left?
Sister reply is also relevant.
Politically motivated reasoning can come from any party or person.
The comic’s content suggested some anti-Hillary sentiment, that paired with “Russiagate” suggested some pro-Bernie political lean, Green Party probably fits with that? Aren’t they more hard-left?
Sister reply is also relevant.
Reading the article it looks like the accusations have been fabricated by a pathological liar. Their star witness against JA is coming out and saying essentially he did it to run from Assange since he ripped WL off for $50k and now he's coming clean about making the whole thing up. The witness is a pedo/criminal as the witness for this whole case.
[deleted]
Extraordinary claims (Trump colludes with Russians, Russians hack DNC) requires extraordinary evidence. In over 5 years, this has not been presented.
> this has not been presented.
s/presented/investigated
There's a lot of things to investigate https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helpe... but since the whole world saw what happened on the 6th and what did not after I don't think there'll ever be evidences extraordinary enough to act on any kind of claims.
s/presented/investigated
There's a lot of things to investigate https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helpe... but since the whole world saw what happened on the 6th and what did not after I don't think there'll ever be evidences extraordinary enough to act on any kind of claims.
Lots of "evidence" in the form of breathless articles quoting anonymous sources who say they really have a smoking gun. This evidence is convincing only to those who are inclined to believe it. What we need is extraordinary evidence that is unambiguously convincing to everyone. That we do not have
To this day most people are still in denial about US involvement in that whole Ukraine situation.
Even tho Euromaidan had US senators in person riling up protesters for regime change [0] and the new interim PM, after a bloody revolution, was sponsored by literally the US DoS and NATO [1].
Pointing this pretty blatant evidence out just gets one called a "Russian troll". While in the US some extremely obscure financial connections to Russia, are allegedly responsible for singlehandedly deciding a whole election and making the following one also a rather close call.
Maybe it's just me, but this seems like a pretty blatant double standard, one that also disfranchises a substantial part of the US population, as allegedly being nothing than "idiots" brainwashed by Russia.
It's no wonder how this kind of narrative keeps increasing the hostility and tribalism, even if Russia wouldn't do anything at all.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-uk...
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200328203654/https://openukrai...
Even tho Euromaidan had US senators in person riling up protesters for regime change [0] and the new interim PM, after a bloody revolution, was sponsored by literally the US DoS and NATO [1].
Pointing this pretty blatant evidence out just gets one called a "Russian troll". While in the US some extremely obscure financial connections to Russia, are allegedly responsible for singlehandedly deciding a whole election and making the following one also a rather close call.
Maybe it's just me, but this seems like a pretty blatant double standard, one that also disfranchises a substantial part of the US population, as allegedly being nothing than "idiots" brainwashed by Russia.
It's no wonder how this kind of narrative keeps increasing the hostility and tribalism, even if Russia wouldn't do anything at all.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-uk...
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200328203654/https://openukrai...
What happened on the sixth? You mean the Reichstag Fire?
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/questions-about-the-fbis-ro...
The whole world saw what the FBI wanted them to see on the sixth. Time will tell what actually happened.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/questions-about-the-fbis-ro...
The whole world saw what the FBI wanted them to see on the sixth. Time will tell what actually happened.
Plenty of evidence has been shown for this part:
>Russians hack DNC
>Russians hack DNC
No. There isn't. There are lots of people saying they have evidence and referring to other people who say no its true they really have evidence. When you dig it's just circular self-references all the way down.
There’s a whole mueller report that was started and run by GOP. Person who started it was Rosenstein, a republican. Who picked Mueller another Republican. Why would they fake evidence against their own president?
Again, "Muller has the evidence!" is pointing at someone and making a claim that never seems to have been backed up.
It seems to be rather hard to actually cite this mountain of evidence without looking like a partisan hack.
It seems to be rather hard to actually cite this mountain of evidence without looking like a partisan hack.
This is idle speculation at best. It doesn’t attach to evidence, and it cannot be dispositive.
Mueller charged Russians for the hack.
Indicted. Famously prosecutors can indict ham sandwiches. Conviction is different. No such thing here.
He convicted everyone that they could actually arrest.
Negative. No. Nothing of the sort. We have singularly a “trust me” from several deeply partisan individuals who have been caught directly in other lies.
That said, if you have this “plenty of evidence” please lay it forth at the feet of humanity very clearly. It would be tremendously valuable and conclusive.
In practice we have waving again and again with more hand waving and assurance on top. A heroic confabulation of nonsense.
That said, if you have this “plenty of evidence” please lay it forth at the feet of humanity very clearly. It would be tremendously valuable and conclusive.
In practice we have waving again and again with more hand waving and assurance on top. A heroic confabulation of nonsense.
Yep.
The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has members who have done good work for the public and the country. However, the memo referenced in your link did not even have the backing all the group's members and its arguments have been persuasively criticized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran_Intelligence_Professio...
The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has members who have done good work for the public and the country. However, the memo referenced in your link did not even have the backing all the group's members and its arguments have been persuasively criticized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran_Intelligence_Professio...
These results are debatable and inconclusive, which is the entire point. If you're going to accuse a sitting President of collusion, you had best have all your ducks in a row. Anything less can be perceived as, or even be indeed, partisan hackery.
Why are you bringing up Trump? This is about whether Russians hacked the DNC's email, that doesn't require collusion or even awareness from the Trump campaign.
But since you did bring him up, it reminded me that in July 2016, weeks after the DNC announced being breached, he publicly called on Russia to release information about Clinton. Candidate Donald J. Trump, verbally and in writing, called on a foreign government to interfere with the presidential campaign against his opponent; doing it in public doesn't make it okay.
"Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. […] By the way, they hacked — they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see."
I don't think "collusion" is the right term for what he did (the attempts to access emails had started in March); I don't know what the right term is, I just know it's not okay.
But since you did bring him up, it reminded me that in July 2016, weeks after the DNC announced being breached, he publicly called on Russia to release information about Clinton. Candidate Donald J. Trump, verbally and in writing, called on a foreign government to interfere with the presidential campaign against his opponent; doing it in public doesn't make it okay.
"Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. […] By the way, they hacked — they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see."
I don't think "collusion" is the right term for what he did (the attempts to access emails had started in March); I don't know what the right term is, I just know it's not okay.
Yeah, we get it. Years of life invested in following the mumbling press who assured with certainty that overturning just one more insider-source stone would reveal that holy grail, all for naught. The real “collusion” was hoping for transparency and accountability, which was denied by our intel agencies from the get-go. Everything after was merely a tail-chasing exercise.
They traced it back to the IRA and named the specific people involved on the Russian side and the method (email phish of Podesta).
The Mueller report goes into specific detail or you can listen to the lawfare blog podcast that goes through it.
“Collusion” is a poorly defined term, the report found their actions didn’t rise to the level of criminal conspiracy, but there was plenty of evidence that the campaign was interested in support and responded to it (“collusion”).
Donald Trump Jr. just didn’t realize Russia was interested in getting the Magnitsky act revoked when he took the meeting and he was disappointed when the Russians didn’t have the “emails” (from the private server, not the DNC emails). The Russians thought they could manipulate their self-imposed orphan adoption ban issue, but DTJ didn’t care about orphans.
American intelligence agencies (or any intelligence agency) are not going to provide you with the precise methods they use to determine where the attack came from.
I suspect no evidence will meet your extraordinary standard because you’re only looking for evidence that supports an existing position based primarily on political motivated reasoning and cognitive bias.
The Mueller report goes into specific detail or you can listen to the lawfare blog podcast that goes through it.
“Collusion” is a poorly defined term, the report found their actions didn’t rise to the level of criminal conspiracy, but there was plenty of evidence that the campaign was interested in support and responded to it (“collusion”).
Donald Trump Jr. just didn’t realize Russia was interested in getting the Magnitsky act revoked when he took the meeting and he was disappointed when the Russians didn’t have the “emails” (from the private server, not the DNC emails). The Russians thought they could manipulate their self-imposed orphan adoption ban issue, but DTJ didn’t care about orphans.
American intelligence agencies (or any intelligence agency) are not going to provide you with the precise methods they use to determine where the attack came from.
I suspect no evidence will meet your extraordinary standard because you’re only looking for evidence that supports an existing position based primarily on political motivated reasoning and cognitive bias.
> I suspect no evidence will meet your extraordinary standard because you’re only looking for evidence that supports an existing position based primarily
Let's s start with even minimal evidence before we get to worrying about my cognitive biases.
Read #8 in this article: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official...
"Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike, testifying in secret to congress, ... saying there was not “concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC,”"
Let's s start with even minimal evidence before we get to worrying about my cognitive biases.
Read #8 in this article: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official...
"Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike, testifying in secret to congress, ... saying there was not “concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC,”"
You've already been provided and discarded more than minimal evidence.
For example, in the muller report, a more extensive investigation, the specific hacking unit is identified. Whether or not crowdstrike knew in 2017 doesn't matter. Today we know APT-28 was responsible, and they're members of the GRU.
For example, in the muller report, a more extensive investigation, the specific hacking unit is identified. Whether or not crowdstrike knew in 2017 doesn't matter. Today we know APT-28 was responsible, and they're members of the GRU.
> For example, in the muller report, a more extensive investigation, the specific hacking unit is identified.
How exactly did they arrive at that attribution?
> Today we know APT-28 was responsible, and they're members of the GRU.
How do we know that? No offense, but out of all the places I thought at least people on HN should be aware about the massive caveats that modern-day cyber attribution comes with.
The vast majority of times it's just "educated guesses" based on identifiers that any smart adversary will know how to spoof and thus utilize as false leads.
It's something that feels like was generally recognized and agreed on circa a decade ago, but somehow got lost in the flood of sensationalist headlines trying to sell any nmap scan or somewhat noteworthy ransomware infestation as Russia/China/Iran starting cyber world war 3.
How exactly did they arrive at that attribution?
> Today we know APT-28 was responsible, and they're members of the GRU.
How do we know that? No offense, but out of all the places I thought at least people on HN should be aware about the massive caveats that modern-day cyber attribution comes with.
The vast majority of times it's just "educated guesses" based on identifiers that any smart adversary will know how to spoof and thus utilize as false leads.
It's something that feels like was generally recognized and agreed on circa a decade ago, but somehow got lost in the flood of sensationalist headlines trying to sell any nmap scan or somewhat noteworthy ransomware infestation as Russia/China/Iran starting cyber world war 3.
I'd suggest reading the relevant portions of the muller report and the related indictments of the GRU agents.
> The vast majority of times it's just "educated guesses" based on identifiers that any smart adversary will know how to spoof and thus utilize as false leads.
No, I'd say people on hn often vastly overstate the lengths people are willing to go to to create these false flag attacks. If we believed hn, no attacks are done, every cyber attack is actually spoofed by an even more formidable spy ring.
Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one. The attack, carried out with many technical signifiers of a Russian state backed attack, that was used to geopolitically help Russia was Russian.
The alternative is that someone (who?) was capable enough to infiltrate Russian cyber intelligence resources to then launch an attack on the us, which they then used to geopolitically assist Russia.
I'm not sure I can think of any attack where someone tried to successfully frame another nation. This doesn't mean they don't happen, but that they're rare. It also means that if they do happen, they're always successful, which seems unlikely. Far more likely is that successfully impersonating a state cyber attack is actually really really difficult, because doing so successfully would in general require persistent access to the state actor you're impersonating.
> The vast majority of times it's just "educated guesses" based on identifiers that any smart adversary will know how to spoof and thus utilize as false leads.
No, I'd say people on hn often vastly overstate the lengths people are willing to go to to create these false flag attacks. If we believed hn, no attacks are done, every cyber attack is actually spoofed by an even more formidable spy ring.
Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one. The attack, carried out with many technical signifiers of a Russian state backed attack, that was used to geopolitically help Russia was Russian.
The alternative is that someone (who?) was capable enough to infiltrate Russian cyber intelligence resources to then launch an attack on the us, which they then used to geopolitically assist Russia.
I'm not sure I can think of any attack where someone tried to successfully frame another nation. This doesn't mean they don't happen, but that they're rare. It also means that if they do happen, they're always successful, which seems unlikely. Far more likely is that successfully impersonating a state cyber attack is actually really really difficult, because doing so successfully would in general require persistent access to the state actor you're impersonating.
> I'd suggest reading the relevant portions of the muller report and the related indictments of the GRU agents.
Why can't you just spell out the method of attribution, instead requiring me to read trough dozens of, mostly political, reports?
> The attack, carried out with many technical signifiers of a Russian state backed attack, that was used to geopolitically help Russia was Russian.
Technical signifiers are not difficult to spoof, nothing about them requires any nation state backing as they rely on heuristics which are semi-public.
That's been the reality of the "cyber theater" for decades: It's asymmetric, there's been more than one example of some lone kid on the spectrum, living in their parents basement, pwning very important and advanced national infrastructure at scale.
That's why I'm very skeptical when a cyber incident is instantly declared as "state level!", usually that's just part of PR and damage control script, along the lines of: "The adversary was a whole nation state, there's nothing we could have done to prevent this from happening!".
Even when the methods deployed are anything but exclusive to nation state actors: Spear-phishing and social engineering are not types of attacks that require nation state resources or knowledge, there's a whole grey market industry offering such attacks as a service.
> The alternative is that someone (who?) was capable enough to infiltrate Russian cyber intelligence resources to then launch an attack on the us, which they then used to geopolitically assist Russia.
Why would that be the only alternative? Your alternative assumes that the attribution to the Russian cyber intelligence is a fact beyond doubt.
> I'm not sure I can think of any attack where someone tried to successfully frame another nation.
That's because if said attack is successful, you wouldn't even know about it being such an attack, that's the crux of the problem.
> Far more likely is that successfully impersonating a state cyber attack is actually really really difficult, because doing so successfully would in general require persistent access to the state actor you're impersonating.
As mentioned before: Nobody needs to impersonate a state cyber attack because by now that's the default assumption not just by media but often enough by those affected themselves to cover up for their own InfoSec negligence.
"We got pwned by the whole Russian intelligence apparatus using massive resources!" sounds much more impressive, and sympathy inducing ,than "We got pwned by some kid from Ukraine because we don't patch our stuff/one of our employees got phished".
Why can't you just spell out the method of attribution, instead requiring me to read trough dozens of, mostly political, reports?
> The attack, carried out with many technical signifiers of a Russian state backed attack, that was used to geopolitically help Russia was Russian.
Technical signifiers are not difficult to spoof, nothing about them requires any nation state backing as they rely on heuristics which are semi-public.
That's been the reality of the "cyber theater" for decades: It's asymmetric, there's been more than one example of some lone kid on the spectrum, living in their parents basement, pwning very important and advanced national infrastructure at scale.
That's why I'm very skeptical when a cyber incident is instantly declared as "state level!", usually that's just part of PR and damage control script, along the lines of: "The adversary was a whole nation state, there's nothing we could have done to prevent this from happening!".
Even when the methods deployed are anything but exclusive to nation state actors: Spear-phishing and social engineering are not types of attacks that require nation state resources or knowledge, there's a whole grey market industry offering such attacks as a service.
> The alternative is that someone (who?) was capable enough to infiltrate Russian cyber intelligence resources to then launch an attack on the us, which they then used to geopolitically assist Russia.
Why would that be the only alternative? Your alternative assumes that the attribution to the Russian cyber intelligence is a fact beyond doubt.
> I'm not sure I can think of any attack where someone tried to successfully frame another nation.
That's because if said attack is successful, you wouldn't even know about it being such an attack, that's the crux of the problem.
> Far more likely is that successfully impersonating a state cyber attack is actually really really difficult, because doing so successfully would in general require persistent access to the state actor you're impersonating.
As mentioned before: Nobody needs to impersonate a state cyber attack because by now that's the default assumption not just by media but often enough by those affected themselves to cover up for their own InfoSec negligence.
"We got pwned by the whole Russian intelligence apparatus using massive resources!" sounds much more impressive, and sympathy inducing ,than "We got pwned by some kid from Ukraine because we don't patch our stuff/one of our employees got phished".
As I understand it, signifiers included command and control servers known to be under Russian state control.
So, yes, someone would need to have piggybacked on Russian state controlled servers.
> Technical signifiers are not difficult to spoof, nothing about them requires any nation state backing as they rely on heuristics which are semi-public
Do you work in this field? I've basically only seen lay people suggest this.
> That's because if said attack is successful, you wouldn't even know about it being such an attack, that's the crux of the problem.
Hence my second point: that we've never seen evidence of an unsuccessful attempt, meaning that there's a 100% success rate of spoofing. You're telling me that's realistic? That the spoofers are just so incredibly more competent than everyone else that they never fuck up? That the random Ukrainian kid is so much better at hacking than various state agencies that when he impersonates them he always does it perfectly? That every Ukrainian kid is that competent? Come on.
Your thesis is essentially that state actors are the least competent "cyber actors", because everyone can impersonate them and none of them can tell. That's counter to basically everything else we know.
So, yes, someone would need to have piggybacked on Russian state controlled servers.
> Technical signifiers are not difficult to spoof, nothing about them requires any nation state backing as they rely on heuristics which are semi-public
Do you work in this field? I've basically only seen lay people suggest this.
> That's because if said attack is successful, you wouldn't even know about it being such an attack, that's the crux of the problem.
Hence my second point: that we've never seen evidence of an unsuccessful attempt, meaning that there's a 100% success rate of spoofing. You're telling me that's realistic? That the spoofers are just so incredibly more competent than everyone else that they never fuck up? That the random Ukrainian kid is so much better at hacking than various state agencies that when he impersonates them he always does it perfectly? That every Ukrainian kid is that competent? Come on.
Your thesis is essentially that state actors are the least competent "cyber actors", because everyone can impersonate them and none of them can tell. That's counter to basically everything else we know.
For as informed as you claim to be, everything you’ve linked to, claimed, and insinuated is vague, indirect, unsubstantiated, and disappears into a cloud of boring political talking points.
Reference Lawfare as a source of unbiased truth in an article about Assange being framed by the intel agencies? The irony could hardly be higher. Ben Wittes, Lawfare editor (Brookings sponsored), claimed counsel status to the head of the FBI in legal proceedings. The streets of Russiagate are paved with agency partisans.
The claims are not extraordinary. The Trump Tower meeting [0] is clear evidence Trump campaign members' interest in colluding with foreign agents. Donald Trump personally had a fig leaf of deniability about that meeting but in interviews [1] he expressed his willingness to collude.
The Trump campaign, at minimum Paul Manafort, colluded with agents of Russia [2].
I'm not going to research how strong the public evidence that Russia was behind the DNC hack but again, it's not an extraordinary claim.
The Trump campaign, at minimum Paul Manafort, colluded with agents of Russia [2].
I'm not going to research how strong the public evidence that Russia was behind the DNC hack but again, it's not an extraordinary claim.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive-interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304
[2] https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-paul-manafort-russia-campaigns-konstantin-kilimnik-d2fdefdb37077e28eba135e21fce6ebfBefore you continue with a flood of poor and circumstantial evidence that's hard to sort through and falsify, the claim that a President colludes with a foreign power is extraordinary.
If that's "a flood," you must live in a very dry place.
Allow me to spoon-feed an important part to you. Don Jr. publicly released emails about the Trump Tower meeting, those are real and not circumstantial evidence in his desire to collude and others in the campaign attended the meeting with foreknowledge of this. Google 'don jr "i love it"' and there are a zillion news stories about them, I don't know how you missed them at the time. An NPR story linked to a complete PDF [0] of what Don Jr released. Here's the beginning of a NY Times story [1] about them:
> The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.
> The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
> If the future president’s eldest son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of a continuing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication.
> He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
A. He wasn't president at the time.
B. While it's natural to assume that a candidate is aware of, and is ultimately responsible for, everything his campaign does, I've distinguished between his campaign colluding and Trump personally colluding.
C. Everything that has already been made public about the campaign makes further claims that are less well documented not extraordinary.
Allow me to spoon-feed an important part to you. Don Jr. publicly released emails about the Trump Tower meeting, those are real and not circumstantial evidence in his desire to collude and others in the campaign attended the meeting with foreknowledge of this. Google 'don jr "i love it"' and there are a zillion news stories about them, I don't know how you missed them at the time. An NPR story linked to a complete PDF [0] of what Don Jr released. Here's the beginning of a NY Times story [1] about them:
> The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.
> The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
> If the future president’s eldest son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of a continuing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication.
> He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
[0] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3892196/Donald-Trump-Jr-Email-Exchange.pdf
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.htmlAnd there you go with the exact flood I predicted.
Here is my reply. Simple.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official...
Here is my reply. Simple.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official...
[deleted]
This strikes me as whataboutism. It has nothing to do with the message to which you replied.
Your link is primarily about the press being insufficiently skeptical about sources in stories related to foreign intelligence. At yet it contains lines like this:
> No matter what, the clear aim of this report is to cast certain stories about Joe or Hunter Biden as misinformation, when the evidence more likely shows that material like the Hunter Biden emails is real, just delivered from a disreputable source. [emphasis added]
Taibbi is revealing his bias at the same time he's claiming bias influenced the contents of a report.
I'm all for healthy skepticism in the public and especially as a part of journalists doing their jobs. Journalists absolutely consider what sources have to gain or what axes they may have to grid. But reflexively assuming anything from the government is a lie is just as bad as assuming it's true. And when there's a public statement or report, that is news and needs to be reported on.
Your link is primarily about the press being insufficiently skeptical about sources in stories related to foreign intelligence. At yet it contains lines like this:
> No matter what, the clear aim of this report is to cast certain stories about Joe or Hunter Biden as misinformation, when the evidence more likely shows that material like the Hunter Biden emails is real, just delivered from a disreputable source. [emphasis added]
Taibbi is revealing his bias at the same time he's claiming bias influenced the contents of a report.
I'm all for healthy skepticism in the public and especially as a part of journalists doing their jobs. Journalists absolutely consider what sources have to gain or what axes they may have to grid. But reflexively assuming anything from the government is a lie is just as bad as assuming it's true. And when there's a public statement or report, that is news and needs to be reported on.
The guidelines require assumption of good faith. So, if we look at the same evidence and I find it lacking, your first goto assumption should not be "well, you have a cognitive bias while I am free of such".
> reflexively assuming anything from the government is a lie
While true, this is a non-sequitur. "The government" is not a monolith. Some in "the government" insist that Russia hacked the DNC, usually Democrats, while others in "the government" insist that it's nonsense
> reflexively assuming anything from the government is a lie
While true, this is a non-sequitur. "The government" is not a monolith. Some in "the government" insist that Russia hacked the DNC, usually Democrats, while others in "the government" insist that it's nonsense
It is interesting that apparently the GOP's email server was hacked as well, but nothing was ever released publicly. I'm no fan at all of the DNC but if "all politicians are dirty" is a thing, then why did no dirt spill out from the other side?
Was it more valuable as kompromat?
Was it more valuable as kompromat?
Highly misleading. The DNC’s mail servers got hacked and they got everything done
The “RNC hack” was one guy’s old laptop with a years out of date local outlook db. Not even in the same league.
The “RNC hack” was one guy’s old laptop with a years out of date local outlook db. Not even in the same league.
What do you mean by "they got everything done"?
> The “RNC hack” was one guy’s old laptop with a years out of date local outlook db.
You have proof of that? This says otherwise.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-...
I'm replying for the sake of challenging your statement but I know it's likely not possible to have an honest discussion about it because you appear to be taking a partisan stance. I have no love for either party, and even if I did love the Dems, I'd be more than happy to acknowledge any and all failings of theirs.
Can you say the same thing?
You have proof of that? This says otherwise.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-...
I'm replying for the sake of challenging your statement but I know it's likely not possible to have an honest discussion about it because you appear to be taking a partisan stance. I have no love for either party, and even if I did love the Dems, I'd be more than happy to acknowledge any and all failings of theirs.
Can you say the same thing?
That article literally agrees with the GP that the RNC was not hacked but the DNC was...
Yup. Looks like it still is. You don't burn your own people unless they are very bad.
Idle conspiracy speculation you’ve provided here.
Also note that, at that time, the Trump organisation was running an EOL’ed MS Exchange server. It’s reasonable to assume it was vulnerable and that all information it contained was leaked.
Let's see your source for the claim that the GOP server was hacked
Assumptions are be made, yes. But my comment was not intended to be tribalistic -- shit's being hacked everywhere.
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican... https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/04/exclusive-emails-o...
If WikiLeaks is about exposing corruption doesn't it seem like they'd do so across party lines?
I don't trust either party but I also don't trust WikiLeaks to be operating without agenda as well.
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican... https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/04/exclusive-emails-o...
If WikiLeaks is about exposing corruption doesn't it seem like they'd do so across party lines?
I don't trust either party but I also don't trust WikiLeaks to be operating without agenda as well.
You've provided nothing suggesting Wikileaks was offered the RNC hack and chose not to publish it.
The bar for extradition doesn't require the US to prove it - the only place they need to prove it is in court when he's in the US.
And "Russiagate" is a bit more nuanced than that - Wikileaks claimed to have GOP emails as well but for some reason never released them.
And "Russiagate" is a bit more nuanced than that - Wikileaks claimed to have GOP emails as well but for some reason never released them.
>Wikileaks claimed to have GOP emails as well but for some reason never released them.
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
I haven't heard that claim before either.
The Wikipedia sources for the DNC hack article [0] say the RNC wasn't successfully hacked. "GOP" refers to the entire Republican Party so I suppose there could be emails from a different Republican origin than the RNC.
> intelligence organizations additionally concluded Russia attempted to hack the Republican National Committee (RNC) as well as the DNC but were prevented by security defenses on the RNC network.
Searching for a source for the GOP claim did remind me of internal WikiLeaks messages from 2015 showing at least Assange's preference for the GOP over Hilary Clinton.
The Wikipedia sources for the DNC hack article [0] say the RNC wasn't successfully hacked. "GOP" refers to the entire Republican Party so I suppose there could be emails from a different Republican origin than the RNC.
> intelligence organizations additionally concluded Russia attempted to hack the Republican National Committee (RNC) as well as the DNC but were prevented by security defenses on the RNC network.
Searching for a source for the GOP claim did remind me of internal WikiLeaks messages from 2015 showing at least Assange's preference for the GOP over Hilary Clinton.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#United_States_intelligence_conclusions
[1] https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/Emails specifically? I'm not sure if that has ever been confirmed, but this is directly from Assange[1]:
>“We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” he said Friday, according to The Washington Post.
>“I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day," Assange said.
When it comes to leaks about Democrats, everything is worth publishing. When it comes to leaks about Republicans, it needs to "controversial" to be worth publishing.
[1] - https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/2934...
>“We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” he said Friday, according to The Washington Post.
>“I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day," Assange said.
When it comes to leaks about Democrats, everything is worth publishing. When it comes to leaks about Republicans, it needs to "controversial" to be worth publishing.
[1] - https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/2934...
You took that quote, which simply doesn’t say what you want. Then you slapped your take on the end, which is what you want the quote to say, but it doesn’t. Wrong.
Ok, what does the quote actually say?
It says “we have some information that is not worth publishing.” Your filigree about relative hurdle for publication is your invention entirely.
Guess what? I have some information that is not worth publishing too. I bet you do too. So what would you propose the action be there?
Guess what? I have some information that is not worth publishing too. I bet you do too. So what would you propose the action be there?
That sounds good in a vacuum, but it is logic that necessitates that everything they do publish is therefore worth publishing. How many of the tens of thousands of emails they leaked from Democrats were worthy of publishing? How many of them had information that had public value in exposing? If the answer is not “all of them” then why would the standard be different for Republicans?
Yes. Wikileaks' statement is a tautology. It is a neutral statement. Your assumptions beg your answer.
You've asked fair questions, but you cannot presume the answers. Maybe you should start a blog and see if you can make such decisions yourself about what's worth publishing. Some people might even harangue you about your decisions and declare that you're a malicious foreign agent.
You've asked fair questions, but you cannot presume the answers. Maybe you should start a blog and see if you can make such decisions yourself about what's worth publishing. Some people might even harangue you about your decisions and declare that you're a malicious foreign agent.
I'm not making any assumptions, I am simply describing their behavior. They leaked tens of thousands of mundane and uninteresting documents about Democrats, but when it comes to Republicans the documents won't be published unless they are "controversial" to use Assange's exact wording. There is no explanation for that which meshes with the idea that they are a neutral platform.
>The US government claims this, but it's not been proven.
Well now with their only witness coming out and saying that he lied about the whole thing and is receiving immunity for his testimony they've got shit-all.
Well now with their only witness coming out and saying that he lied about the whole thing and is receiving immunity for his testimony they've got shit-all.
> It’s hard to know the truth here though when nation state interests are at play. To what extent were the sex related charges against him political or flared up by nation state meddling?
I think that, even in and of itself, if a nation state intelligence agency is attempting a smear campaign or outright character assassination, and the very best they can manage is "may have had sex that was consensual but unprotected without agreement"?
That's one hell of a sad state of affairs for that intelligence agency.
Like beyond "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity", "government incompetence" cliches. Like amazingly pathetic. I can't fathom that being the line they'd go for.
"Sir, we came up with a plan to destroy his character in the public's eye!"
"Great, what is it?"
"Well, uhh, he had a bit of a threesome-like affair, and he may not have used a condom even though he said he would... we can spin that so well that everyone will disown him!"
"..."
I think that, even in and of itself, if a nation state intelligence agency is attempting a smear campaign or outright character assassination, and the very best they can manage is "may have had sex that was consensual but unprotected without agreement"?
That's one hell of a sad state of affairs for that intelligence agency.
Like beyond "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity", "government incompetence" cliches. Like amazingly pathetic. I can't fathom that being the line they'd go for.
"Sir, we came up with a plan to destroy his character in the public's eye!"
"Great, what is it?"
"Well, uhh, he had a bit of a threesome-like affair, and he may not have used a condom even though he said he would... we can spin that so well that everyone will disown him!"
"..."
> I can't fathom that being the line they'd go for.
That's literally the line they went for, thanks to Snowden we do know Five Eyes runs programs exactly for these kinds of character assassinations [0].
Or why do you think we had all these amazing headlines about how badly Assange allegedly treats his cat and how dirty his bathroom is? How is that of relevance to anybody on a global scale?
It's all pure ad-hominem to keep the narrative about him as a person, and not what he actually did and blew the whistle on.
[0] https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
That's literally the line they went for, thanks to Snowden we do know Five Eyes runs programs exactly for these kinds of character assassinations [0].
Or why do you think we had all these amazing headlines about how badly Assange allegedly treats his cat and how dirty his bathroom is? How is that of relevance to anybody on a global scale?
It's all pure ad-hominem to keep the narrative about him as a person, and not what he actually did and blew the whistle on.
[0] https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
> No, that’s not illegal for somebody without a clearance.
Yeah, but that's not stopping the US for charging him with the Espionage act for it anyway. Most of his charges are for leaking/seeking secret info. The charge for assisting Manning is 5 potential years of the 175 he faces.
Yeah, but that's not stopping the US for charging him with the Espionage act for it anyway. Most of his charges are for leaking/seeking secret info. The charge for assisting Manning is 5 potential years of the 175 he faces.
His crime was that he ran hashcat https://blog.erratasec.com/2019/04/assange-indicted-for-brea...
> Had he just been accepting docs as he was initially that would have been fine.
They would just invent something else.
> Had he just been accepting docs as he was initially that would have been fine.
They would just invent something else.
> It’s hard to know the truth here though when nation state interests are at play.
Not really and not after they faked witness reports. It is completely in line with what was published and there was no alternative in acquiring this information, which there certainly being enough public interest.
Not really and not after they faked witness reports. It is completely in line with what was published and there was no alternative in acquiring this information, which there certainly being enough public interest.
> At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange’s personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too.
There's a passage in Sarah Kendzior's book (Hiding in plain sight: the invention of Donald Trump and the erosion of America) which clicked (to me): ultimately things like wikileaks damage societies and governments that are transparent. You will always find more dirt and problems in public/accessible records than in dictatorships. These initiatives are doomed to be used at some points as tools against healthy democracies/open states.
edit: the passage
> Among the few who saw the threat clearly was computer scientist Jaron Lanier, who, in 2010, warned the public of a new danger: WikiLeaks. At the time, free speech advocates were hailing WikiLeaks, and its founder, Julian Assange, as defenders of government transparency. Their lionization of the leaker organization was largely due to frustration with the criminal impunity of the Bush administration. In February 2010, soldier Chelsea Manning exposed war crimes by sending classified documents to WikiLeaks, which WikiLeaks then published online. The emphasis on civilian victims led human rights advocates to believe that WikiLeaks would prove a formidable opponent for autocratic regimes. But after WikiLeaks dropped hacked documents from the US State Department in November, Lanier predicted the opposite—that WikiLeaks would ultimately ally with dictators and that social media networks would abet them:
>> The WikiLeaks method punishes a nation—or any human undertaking—that falls short of absolute, total transparency, which is all human undertakings, but perversely rewards an absolute lack of transparency. Thus an iron-shut government doesn’t have leaks to the site, but a mostly-open government does.
>> If the political world becomes a mirror of the Internet as we know it today, then the world will be restructured around opaque, digitally delineated power centers surrounded by a sea of chaotic, underachieving openness. WikiLeaks is one prototype of a digital power center, but others include hedge funds and social networking sites.
>> This is the world we are headed to, it seems, since people are unable to resist becoming organized according to the digital architectures that connect us. The only way out is to change the architecture.
> Social media sites didn’t change the architecture. Instead, over the course of the 2010s, the architecture changed us. The calculus of post–Cold War politics—that democracy spreads through engagement, that technology enhances freedom—was reversed. Hostile states used digital technology not only to attack their own citizens but to attempt to transform foreign democracies into dictatorships. We saw this with Russian influence operations in elections in the United States, France, and in the Brexit referendum, among others.10 The social media corporations that had once bragged of the internet’s liberating power now helped the hijackers of democracy. Networks like Facebook abetted, whether intentionally or not, the “iron triangles” of organized crime, state corruption, and corporate criminality, and they were aided by complicit Western actors content to let their own countries die while turning a profit.
There's a passage in Sarah Kendzior's book (Hiding in plain sight: the invention of Donald Trump and the erosion of America) which clicked (to me): ultimately things like wikileaks damage societies and governments that are transparent. You will always find more dirt and problems in public/accessible records than in dictatorships. These initiatives are doomed to be used at some points as tools against healthy democracies/open states.
edit: the passage
> Among the few who saw the threat clearly was computer scientist Jaron Lanier, who, in 2010, warned the public of a new danger: WikiLeaks. At the time, free speech advocates were hailing WikiLeaks, and its founder, Julian Assange, as defenders of government transparency. Their lionization of the leaker organization was largely due to frustration with the criminal impunity of the Bush administration. In February 2010, soldier Chelsea Manning exposed war crimes by sending classified documents to WikiLeaks, which WikiLeaks then published online. The emphasis on civilian victims led human rights advocates to believe that WikiLeaks would prove a formidable opponent for autocratic regimes. But after WikiLeaks dropped hacked documents from the US State Department in November, Lanier predicted the opposite—that WikiLeaks would ultimately ally with dictators and that social media networks would abet them:
>> The WikiLeaks method punishes a nation—or any human undertaking—that falls short of absolute, total transparency, which is all human undertakings, but perversely rewards an absolute lack of transparency. Thus an iron-shut government doesn’t have leaks to the site, but a mostly-open government does.
>> If the political world becomes a mirror of the Internet as we know it today, then the world will be restructured around opaque, digitally delineated power centers surrounded by a sea of chaotic, underachieving openness. WikiLeaks is one prototype of a digital power center, but others include hedge funds and social networking sites.
>> This is the world we are headed to, it seems, since people are unable to resist becoming organized according to the digital architectures that connect us. The only way out is to change the architecture.
> Social media sites didn’t change the architecture. Instead, over the course of the 2010s, the architecture changed us. The calculus of post–Cold War politics—that democracy spreads through engagement, that technology enhances freedom—was reversed. Hostile states used digital technology not only to attack their own citizens but to attempt to transform foreign democracies into dictatorships. We saw this with Russian influence operations in elections in the United States, France, and in the Brexit referendum, among others.10 The social media corporations that had once bragged of the internet’s liberating power now helped the hijackers of democracy. Networks like Facebook abetted, whether intentionally or not, the “iron triangles” of organized crime, state corruption, and corporate criminality, and they were aided by complicit Western actors content to let their own countries die while turning a profit.
Lol no. The reason there is not as much damaging information leaked from dictatorships, is because any leakers are guaranteed to be executed. Reality Winner and Chelsea Manning would have been executed after a 30 minute show trial in a dictatorship.
> Reality Winner and Chelsea Manning would have been executed after a 30 minute show trial in a dictatorship.
And Snowden, having escaped overseas but not being particularly hidden, would have had an encounter with some kind of nerve agent delivered by someone totally unconnected to the government he had leaked info from.
None of which endorses the US treatment of any of them.
And Snowden, having escaped overseas but not being particularly hidden, would have had an encounter with some kind of nerve agent delivered by someone totally unconnected to the government he had leaked info from.
None of which endorses the US treatment of any of them.
That's not in contradiction of what I wrote. By their very nature transparent and healthy democracies have a larger surface attacks for leaks than dictatorships.
I believe the reason you are getting down voted isn't because you don't cite your source, but because the reasoning is absurd.
If the US gov is a healthy, democratic, open gov, how and why can Wikileaks be so damaging?
Should we stop newspapers?
> You will always find more dirt and problems in public/accessible records than in dictatorships.
If the US gov is a healthy, democratic, open gov, how and why can Wikileaks be so damaging?
Should we stop newspapers?
> If the US gov is a healthy, democratic, open gov, how and why can Wikileaks be so damaging?
Because we are still humans and fallible. No matter how healthy, open gov or democratic our governing bodies are I suppose there will always be something going off rails at some points and it's much easier to spot it in transparent governing structures (which usually means democracies) than in non-transparent ones (which usually means dictatorships).
> > You will always find more dirt and problems in public/accessible records than in dictatorships.
> Wikileaks isn't some sort Wikipedia of public/accessible records, it's a platform to publish confidential information.
Yes, yes. But it's easier to feed wikileaks with information from democracies than from dictatorships.
> I believe the reason you are getting down voted isn't because you don't cite your source, but because the reasoning is absurd.
I am okay with downvotes ^^ as long as it's not a flamewar.
Because we are still humans and fallible. No matter how healthy, open gov or democratic our governing bodies are I suppose there will always be something going off rails at some points and it's much easier to spot it in transparent governing structures (which usually means democracies) than in non-transparent ones (which usually means dictatorships).
> > You will always find more dirt and problems in public/accessible records than in dictatorships.
> Wikileaks isn't some sort Wikipedia of public/accessible records, it's a platform to publish confidential information.
Yes, yes. But it's easier to feed wikileaks with information from democracies than from dictatorships.
> I believe the reason you are getting down voted isn't because you don't cite your source, but because the reasoning is absurd.
I am okay with downvotes ^^ as long as it's not a flamewar.
> Because we are still humans and fallible.
Did you look at what Wikileaks revealed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Leaks
I don't think you realize the scale of what is happening. These aren't some cute human mistakes or tax evasion.
We are talking war crimes, environmental disasters, political corruption, ...
And yes - lots of it targets the US gov, maybe time to rethink what the US (and others) gov is and isn't ?
This isn't the work of fallible humans, this is the work of malfunctioning states.
Without Wikileaks, medias and investigation that reveals the wrongdoings ... dictatorship is at the end of the road.
This is why the reasoning that Wikileaks helps dictatorships and hurts democracies is absurd.
Did you look at what Wikileaks revealed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Leaks
I don't think you realize the scale of what is happening. These aren't some cute human mistakes or tax evasion.
We are talking war crimes, environmental disasters, political corruption, ...
And yes - lots of it targets the US gov, maybe time to rethink what the US (and others) gov is and isn't ?
This isn't the work of fallible humans, this is the work of malfunctioning states.
Without Wikileaks, medias and investigation that reveals the wrongdoings ... dictatorship is at the end of the road.
This is why the reasoning that Wikileaks helps dictatorships and hurts democracies is absurd.
> This is why the reasoning that Wikileaks helps dictatorships is absurd.
I never wrote that nor implied it. I wrote and I maintain that wikileaks deals more blows to democracies than dictatorships and that it's because of the very nature of democracies (edit: notwithstanding the whole anti-US bias of Assange).
I don't know how to make my point clearer:
- Wikileaks's leaks are mainly about democracies, not dictatorships.
- It creates tensions in these democracies and it does not in dictatorships.
- This consumes resources and has consequences in democracies (civil unrest, lack of trust from the population, investigations, weakening of governments, tensions in relationships with other nations, etc.)
- Whether it's a good thing or not, it's desirable or not doesn't change the fact that dictatorships are not diminished and are not the target of wikileaks while democracies are.
> We are talking war crimes, environmental disasters, political corruption, ...
And regarding my last point: I do not believe for a second that we should ignore those facts in order to appear strong or clean or whatever.
I never wrote that nor implied it. I wrote and I maintain that wikileaks deals more blows to democracies than dictatorships and that it's because of the very nature of democracies (edit: notwithstanding the whole anti-US bias of Assange).
I don't know how to make my point clearer:
- Wikileaks's leaks are mainly about democracies, not dictatorships.
- It creates tensions in these democracies and it does not in dictatorships.
- This consumes resources and has consequences in democracies (civil unrest, lack of trust from the population, investigations, weakening of governments, tensions in relationships with other nations, etc.)
- Whether it's a good thing or not, it's desirable or not doesn't change the fact that dictatorships are not diminished and are not the target of wikileaks while democracies are.
> We are talking war crimes, environmental disasters, political corruption, ...
And regarding my last point: I do not believe for a second that we should ignore those facts in order to appear strong or clean or whatever.
>wikileaks deals more blows to democracies than dictatorships
I think the central fallacy here is seeing the central operating principle of democracy, which is the informed public feeding their knowledge and judgement back in, as a blow to democracy. It is like a automotive mechanic saying "there's your problem, the fuel air mixture in your engine is exploding." The press reporting on the government is one link in democracy's central cycle.
Your are right about seeing reporting as a blow to dictatorship, of course. In their case the action of an informed public really is a blow to the state, following the fact that the public is not part of the state.
So in that light it's true that journalism does more to help free societies than it does to hurt dictatorships, since there's more of it in freer societies.
I think the central fallacy here is seeing the central operating principle of democracy, which is the informed public feeding their knowledge and judgement back in, as a blow to democracy. It is like a automotive mechanic saying "there's your problem, the fuel air mixture in your engine is exploding." The press reporting on the government is one link in democracy's central cycle.
Your are right about seeing reporting as a blow to dictatorship, of course. In their case the action of an informed public really is a blow to the state, following the fact that the public is not part of the state.
So in that light it's true that journalism does more to help free societies than it does to hurt dictatorships, since there's more of it in freer societies.
[deleted]
>it's a platform to publish confidential information.
Phrasing it like this is misleading as it implies that Wikileaks is a neutral platform, a dumb tool that acts at the leaker's discretion. That isn't what we see when we look at their actual behavior. They do not publish every leak they receive and therefore they have editorial control over their platform. Assange himself has said they have received leaks about the Trump campaign that they wouldn't publish. That shifts Wikileaks from a neutral platform to publish confidential information to a political entity that uses leaked confidential information to achieve political goals.
EDIT: This is being downvoted so here is a source in which Assange talks about having leaked info about Trump and not publishing it.[1]
[1] - https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/2934...
Phrasing it like this is misleading as it implies that Wikileaks is a neutral platform, a dumb tool that acts at the leaker's discretion. That isn't what we see when we look at their actual behavior. They do not publish every leak they receive and therefore they have editorial control over their platform. Assange himself has said they have received leaks about the Trump campaign that they wouldn't publish. That shifts Wikileaks from a neutral platform to publish confidential information to a political entity that uses leaked confidential information to achieve political goals.
EDIT: This is being downvoted so here is a source in which Assange talks about having leaked info about Trump and not publishing it.[1]
[1] - https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/2934...
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted so much, the point is definitely interesting
Imagine a leak comes out about Putin (you don’t have to imagine that hard..). It would hardly make any noise: there’s no more free press to raise a stink about it, and the population is so used to swimming in the post-truth sewage spewing from the top that they’ll just ignore it
Imagine a leak comes out about Putin (you don’t have to imagine that hard..). It would hardly make any noise: there’s no more free press to raise a stink about it, and the population is so used to swimming in the post-truth sewage spewing from the top that they’ll just ignore it
Our elites would be more secure and less embarrassed if they didn't have to deal with a free press but society is made up more than the elites and we need weigh the utility of the rest of society as well.
> I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted so much, the point is definitely interesting
I have observed a `shark smelling blood` thing going sometimes on HN. If the timing is right and if a child comment in an upvoted parent that is at the top of post gets one or two downvotes then it has some visibility and then it attracts downvote clicks. If there are 4 or 5 other children they get ignored (I believe the last one gets all the downvote because people parse from top to bottom and only bother interacting with first or last elements... so some posts will get buried while others will sail through) shrug, it might be all in my head though ;).
I have observed a `shark smelling blood` thing going sometimes on HN. If the timing is right and if a child comment in an upvoted parent that is at the top of post gets one or two downvotes then it has some visibility and then it attracts downvote clicks. If there are 4 or 5 other children they get ignored (I believe the last one gets all the downvote because people parse from top to bottom and only bother interacting with first or last elements... so some posts will get buried while others will sail through) shrug, it might be all in my head though ;).
Don’t think so. Reddit suffers heavily from this and is a known phenomenon.
Lanier's smart, isn't he? It sounds like he was ahead of the curve, here.
A vehicle that publishes anything without restraint is just a loudspeaker. When Wikileaks got hold of leaked emails in the middle of a political smear campaign, I expected it to be better and delay the publishing.
>what is the general accusation of his crimes?
Realistically, he simply pissed off members of the ruling class of the US. Their presence has become significantly more obvious in recent years.
Other than that, I'd say it's mostly a 'show me the man, I'll show you the crime' sort of thing.
Realistically, he simply pissed off members of the ruling class of the US. Their presence has become significantly more obvious in recent years.
Other than that, I'd say it's mostly a 'show me the man, I'll show you the crime' sort of thing.
In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like.
1) You cannot even come close to proving your statement, and
2) None of this would even be illegal if it weren't for intel agencies acting as political hit squads.
It has already been documented and laid out in the Mueller Report, and summarized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
We have all read the Mueller report. It entirely fails on the points above. It’s right there in the link you sent. Do you care to differentiate between unsubstantiated allegations and reality? You just want everyone to pretend your conspiratorial story, based strictly on allegations, is true?
It is true and substantiated, and detailed in the Mueller report. Just because you don't like these facts don't make them false.
Oh, is it then? Remarkable. Then post directly here the part where it says:
> In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like.
I know that you cannot and will not, because it doesn't say that. But you can try your darnedest. Give it a good college try.
> In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like.
I know that you cannot and will not, because it doesn't say that. But you can try your darnedest. Give it a good college try.
This is tiresome, but like I mentioned has already been proven.
> On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency.[12][66][67] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the DNC and additional sources such as John Podesta, campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton.
> On July 27, 2016, The New York Times reported that Julian Assange, in an interview on British ITV on June 12, 2016, had "made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the presidency", and that in a later interview[118] on the program Democracy Now! on July 25, 2016, the first day of the Democratic National Convention, he acknowledged that "he had timed their release to coincide with the Democratic convention."[50][119] In an interview with CNN, Assange would neither confirm nor deny who WikiLeaks' sources were; he claimed that his website "... might release "a lot more material" relevant to the US electoral campaign ..."
> On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency.[12][66][67] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the DNC and additional sources such as John Podesta, campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton.
> On July 27, 2016, The New York Times reported that Julian Assange, in an interview on British ITV on June 12, 2016, had "made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the presidency", and that in a later interview[118] on the program Democracy Now! on July 25, 2016, the first day of the Democratic National Convention, he acknowledged that "he had timed their release to coincide with the Democratic convention."[50][119] In an interview with CNN, Assange would neither confirm nor deny who WikiLeaks' sources were; he claimed that his website "... might release "a lot more material" relevant to the US electoral campaign ..."
Perfect. You quoted Wikipedia, not the report you claim has the information. Wikipedia cited the WP. WP cited 'secret'.
How do we know it? "CIA told us." Why do we believe it? "CIA told us." What evidence do we have? "CIA told us so." How'd they come to this conclusion? "That's for them to know and us to take in faith." Do they have a history of lying? "Yes." To Congress? "Yes." Are there any consequences for this? "No." Okay, so you want to steer our country and globe like this? "Yes."
It's BS turtles all the way down. Oh, and btw their primary collaborators are pathological, serial liar, child molestors who are both threatened with prosecutorial jeopardy and granted legal immunity.
How do we know it? "CIA told us." Why do we believe it? "CIA told us." What evidence do we have? "CIA told us so." How'd they come to this conclusion? "That's for them to know and us to take in faith." Do they have a history of lying? "Yes." To Congress? "Yes." Are there any consequences for this? "No." Okay, so you want to steer our country and globe like this? "Yes."
It's BS turtles all the way down. Oh, and btw their primary collaborators are pathological, serial liar, child molestors who are both threatened with prosecutorial jeopardy and granted legal immunity.
I did some work for you. Here's the direct quote from the unreacted Mueller report:
"The Office determined that it did not have admissible evidence that was probably sufficient to obtain and sustain a Section 1030 conspiracy conviction of WikiLeaks, Assange, or Stone."
"With respect to Wikileaks and Assange, this Office determined the admissible evidence to be insufficient on both the agreement and knowledge prongs."
They literally redacted (and way later un-redacted) the part that recognized that they had zero evidence. Pathetic beyond any conceivable reality, I know, but there it is. Page 177. Good luck with your theories.
https://epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/Mueller-Report-Repr...
"The Office determined that it did not have admissible evidence that was probably sufficient to obtain and sustain a Section 1030 conspiracy conviction of WikiLeaks, Assange, or Stone."
"With respect to Wikileaks and Assange, this Office determined the admissible evidence to be insufficient on both the agreement and knowledge prongs."
They literally redacted (and way later un-redacted) the part that recognized that they had zero evidence. Pathetic beyond any conceivable reality, I know, but there it is. Page 177. Good luck with your theories.
https://epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/Mueller-Report-Repr...
It's all in the Mueller report and I'm not digging out quotes from a 500 page document to repeat what is already known, just because you don't like the facts, I'm sorry.
Except that, of course, it's not. In fact, IIRC, they stated they had too little evidence to substantiate the claims.
Maybe it's you who doesn't like the facts?
Maybe it's you who doesn't like the facts?
Like I mentioned, Assange isn't an idiot and knew full well who he was dealing with at the time. It doesn't need to rise to the level of provable criminal conspiracy for anyone to know someone as sophisticated as him just didn't bumble into the situation, especially when it was speculated at the time that the Guccifer 2.0 alias was likely a front for a foreign intelligence group.
I'd like to understand the difference between "interfere[nce] with the US election process" and releasing true information that some voters use to inform their vote.
They are trying to get him on the conspiracy with Manning's unauthorized access, based on chat logs AIUI.
They have already done a great job turning public opinion against him, though: the completely false claim that he was charged with rape is widely believed and repeated. Anyone who has fallen for this false narrative is encouraged to read the exact words of the women involved.
He has also been effectively imprisoned without trial for about a decade now.
Mostly he just serves as an example to what happens to people extrajudicially for fucking in any way with the US surveillance state and war apparatus.
They have already done a great job turning public opinion against him, though: the completely false claim that he was charged with rape is widely believed and repeated. Anyone who has fallen for this false narrative is encouraged to read the exact words of the women involved.
He has also been effectively imprisoned without trial for about a decade now.
Mostly he just serves as an example to what happens to people extrajudicially for fucking in any way with the US surveillance state and war apparatus.
> He has also been effectively imprisoned without trial for about a decade now.
It’s a bit dishonest to claim he’s been imprisoned without a trial when he skipped on bail in 2012 and chose to stay in an embassy instead of turn himself in to the UK government.
He was arrested in 2019 and promptly convicted of skipping on bail in the same year by the UK government.
It’s a bit dishonest to claim he’s been imprisoned without a trial when he skipped on bail in 2012 and chose to stay in an embassy instead of turn himself in to the UK government.
He was arrested in 2019 and promptly convicted of skipping on bail in the same year by the UK government.
Not at all. The UN's human rights department has found it to be so:
from https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/02/521632-wikileaks-founde...
> The founder of the WikiLeaks website, which published confidential diplomatic information, has been arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the United Kingdom since his arrest in London in December 2010, as a result of the legal action against him by both Governments, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said today.
Skipping bail to seek asylum in a country that will attempt to preserve your human rights, when not skipping bail means you get extradited to a country that will torture you via extended solitary confinement prior to trial is not what most people mean when they use the phrase "skipping bail". If any description is dishonest here, it's that.
A sham trial that you get tortured before getting to attend is always something to be avoided. Let's not forget that Manning was tortured to the point of multiple suicide attempts in prison prior to trial, as well as being declared guilty in public by a sitting US president (also before trial).
Several senior officials in the US government called for Assange's summary execution for publishing. There is approximately zero chance that he will receive a fair trial or humane treatment in the USA.
from https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/02/521632-wikileaks-founde...
> The founder of the WikiLeaks website, which published confidential diplomatic information, has been arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the United Kingdom since his arrest in London in December 2010, as a result of the legal action against him by both Governments, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said today.
Skipping bail to seek asylum in a country that will attempt to preserve your human rights, when not skipping bail means you get extradited to a country that will torture you via extended solitary confinement prior to trial is not what most people mean when they use the phrase "skipping bail". If any description is dishonest here, it's that.
A sham trial that you get tortured before getting to attend is always something to be avoided. Let's not forget that Manning was tortured to the point of multiple suicide attempts in prison prior to trial, as well as being declared guilty in public by a sitting US president (also before trial).
Several senior officials in the US government called for Assange's summary execution for publishing. There is approximately zero chance that he will receive a fair trial or humane treatment in the USA.
> when not skipping bail means you get extradited to a country that will torture you via extended solitary confinement prior to trial
On plenty of occasions, the UK has demonstrated its willingness to not extradite suspects to the US out of concern for their welfare.
> declared guilty in public by a sitting US president (also before trial)
Because the US has not yet fallen under authoritarian rule and has an independent judiciary, it's possible to have a fair trial even when the president offers an opinion about the case. But offering such opinions is frowned upon because it's bad optics. Before you bring up tainting the jury pool, an upside to the lack of civic engagement amongst Americans is it's not difficult to find people who won't have heard a president's or anyone else's opinions.
On plenty of occasions, the UK has demonstrated its willingness to not extradite suspects to the US out of concern for their welfare.
> declared guilty in public by a sitting US president (also before trial)
Because the US has not yet fallen under authoritarian rule and has an independent judiciary, it's possible to have a fair trial even when the president offers an opinion about the case. But offering such opinions is frowned upon because it's bad optics. Before you bring up tainting the jury pool, an upside to the lack of civic engagement amongst Americans is it's not difficult to find people who won't have heard a president's or anyone else's opinions.
[deleted]
> not skipping bail means you get extradited to a country that will torture you via extended solitary confinement
An extradition request which has so far been denied, in part due to the conditions he will face in the US, FWIW. I'm not sure that it can be taken as given that an earlier request (to the UK or Sweden) would have been successful:
> Faced with conditions of near total isolation and without the protective factors which moderate his risk at HMP Belmarsh, I am satisfied that the procedures described by Dr. Leukefled[sic][1] will not prevent Mr. Assange from finding a way to commit suicide. [...] I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the "single minded determination" of his autism spectrum disorder. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.[2]
[1] "[Dr. Leukefeld] is a psychologist employed as the administrator of the psychology services branch in the central office of the [Bureau of Prisons]" ([2] at 350)
[2] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As... at 361-363
An extradition request which has so far been denied, in part due to the conditions he will face in the US, FWIW. I'm not sure that it can be taken as given that an earlier request (to the UK or Sweden) would have been successful:
> Faced with conditions of near total isolation and without the protective factors which moderate his risk at HMP Belmarsh, I am satisfied that the procedures described by Dr. Leukefled[sic][1] will not prevent Mr. Assange from finding a way to commit suicide. [...] I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the "single minded determination" of his autism spectrum disorder. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.[2]
[1] "[Dr. Leukefeld] is a psychologist employed as the administrator of the psychology services branch in the central office of the [Bureau of Prisons]" ([2] at 350)
[2] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As... at 361-363
He's now been in HMP Belmarsh, a notoriously hard and high security prison, for two years without a trial.
It's very hard to make a case that this isn't arbitrary detention at this point.
It's very hard to make a case that this isn't arbitrary detention at this point.
From Wikipedia:
>The charges stem from the allegation that Assange attempted and failed to crack a password hash so that Chelsea Manning could use a different username to download classified documents and avoid detection.[41] This allegation had been known since 2011 and was a factor in Manning's trial; the indictment did not reveal any new information about Assange.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julia...
I don't believe it counts as journalism if you help someone commit a crime- that's the crux of the issue. Notice that real journalists who are passive receivers of information do not get criminally charged.
>The charges stem from the allegation that Assange attempted and failed to crack a password hash so that Chelsea Manning could use a different username to download classified documents and avoid detection.[41] This allegation had been known since 2011 and was a factor in Manning's trial; the indictment did not reveal any new information about Assange.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julia...
I don't believe it counts as journalism if you help someone commit a crime- that's the crux of the issue. Notice that real journalists who are passive receivers of information do not get criminally charged.
[deleted]
I think the extradition ruling[1] from the UK judge assigned to the case provides a pretty good overview. (In general, I'd suggest trying to find primary sources as much as you can, because there's a lot of misinformation flying about about the case) Below are some of the allegations not related to Thordarson:
> It is alleged that WikiLeaks solicited material by publishing a list of information it wished to obtain, its “Most Wanted Leaks”. In November 2009 this list included: “Bulk Databases” including “Intellipedia”, (a non-public CIA database) and classified “Military and Intelligence” documents. In December 2009, Mr. Assange and a WikiLeaks affilia te gave a presentation to the 26th Chaos Communication Congress in which WikiLea ks described itself as “the leading disclosure portal for classified, restricted or legally threatened publications.” In 2009 Mr. Assange spoke at the “Hack in the Box Security Conference” in Malaysia in which he made reference to a “capture the flag” hacking contest and noted that WikiLeaks had its own list of flags that it wanted captured.
> Between November 2009 and May 2010, Ms. Manning was in direct contact with Mr. Assange using a chatlog (the “Jabber communications”). On 8 March 2010, it is alleged that Mr. Assange agreed to assist Ms. Manning in cracking a password hash stored on a DoD computer. Mr. Assange indicated that he was "good" at "hash-cracking" and that he had rainbow tools (a tool used to crack Microsoft password hashes). Ms. Manning provided him with an alphanumeric string. This was identical to an encrypted password hash stored on the Systems Account Manager (SAMS) registry file of a SIPRNet computer, used by Ms. Manning, and associated with an account that was not assigned to any specific user. Mr. Assange later told her that he had no luck yet and asked for more “hints.” It is alleged that, had they succeeded in cracking the encrypted password hash, Ms. Manning might have been able to log on to computers connected to the classified SIPRNet network under a username that did not belong to her, making it more difficult for investigators to identify her as the source of the disclosures. It is specifically alleged that Mr.Assange entered into this agreement to assist Ms Manning’s ongoing efforts to steal classified material.
> On 31 December 2011, WikiLeaks tweeted “#antisec owning Law enforcement in 2012.” It included links to emails and databases confirming that Hammond and AntiSec had hacked two US state police associations. On 3 January 2012, WikiLeaks tweeted a link to information which LulzSec/AntiSec had hacked and published in 2011 headed,“Anonymous/Antisec/Luzsec releases in 2011.” In January 2012, Hammond told Sabu that “JA” had provided Hammond with a script to search the emails stolen from Intelligence Consulting Company, and that “JA” would provide the script to associates of Hammond as well. Hammond also introduced Sabu via Jabber to “JA.” In January and February 2012, Sabu used the chatlog Jabber to communicate with Mr.Assange. On 27 February 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing emails that Hammond and others hacked from the Intelligence Consulting Company. On 27 February 2012 Hammond told Sabu, “we started giving JA” materials that had been obtained from other hacks. On 28 February 2012 Hammond complained to Sabu that the incompetence of his fellow hackers was causing him to fail to meet estimates he had given to Mr. Assange about the amount of hacked information he expected to provide to WikiLeaks, stating, “can’t sit on all these targets dicking around when the booty is sitting there ... especially when we are asked to make it happen with WL. We repeated a 2TB number to JA. Now turns out it’s like maybe 100GB. Would have been 40-50GB if I didn’t go and get all the mail from [foreign cybersecurity company].” Hammond then asked for help with ongoing computer intrusion committe d by his associates against victims including a US law enforcement entity, a US political organisation, and a US cybersecurity company. In March 2012, Hammond was arrested.
> In June 2013, media outlets reported that Edward J. Snowden had leaked numerous documents taken from the National Security Agency and was in Hong Kong. It is alleged that, to encourage leakers and hackers to provide stolen materials to WikiLeaks, Mr.Assange and others at WikiLeaks openly displayed their attempts to assist Snowden to evade arrest.
[1] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As...
> It is alleged that WikiLeaks solicited material by publishing a list of information it wished to obtain, its “Most Wanted Leaks”. In November 2009 this list included: “Bulk Databases” including “Intellipedia”, (a non-public CIA database) and classified “Military and Intelligence” documents. In December 2009, Mr. Assange and a WikiLeaks affilia te gave a presentation to the 26th Chaos Communication Congress in which WikiLea ks described itself as “the leading disclosure portal for classified, restricted or legally threatened publications.” In 2009 Mr. Assange spoke at the “Hack in the Box Security Conference” in Malaysia in which he made reference to a “capture the flag” hacking contest and noted that WikiLeaks had its own list of flags that it wanted captured.
> Between November 2009 and May 2010, Ms. Manning was in direct contact with Mr. Assange using a chatlog (the “Jabber communications”). On 8 March 2010, it is alleged that Mr. Assange agreed to assist Ms. Manning in cracking a password hash stored on a DoD computer. Mr. Assange indicated that he was "good" at "hash-cracking" and that he had rainbow tools (a tool used to crack Microsoft password hashes). Ms. Manning provided him with an alphanumeric string. This was identical to an encrypted password hash stored on the Systems Account Manager (SAMS) registry file of a SIPRNet computer, used by Ms. Manning, and associated with an account that was not assigned to any specific user. Mr. Assange later told her that he had no luck yet and asked for more “hints.” It is alleged that, had they succeeded in cracking the encrypted password hash, Ms. Manning might have been able to log on to computers connected to the classified SIPRNet network under a username that did not belong to her, making it more difficult for investigators to identify her as the source of the disclosures. It is specifically alleged that Mr.Assange entered into this agreement to assist Ms Manning’s ongoing efforts to steal classified material.
> On 31 December 2011, WikiLeaks tweeted “#antisec owning Law enforcement in 2012.” It included links to emails and databases confirming that Hammond and AntiSec had hacked two US state police associations. On 3 January 2012, WikiLeaks tweeted a link to information which LulzSec/AntiSec had hacked and published in 2011 headed,“Anonymous/Antisec/Luzsec releases in 2011.” In January 2012, Hammond told Sabu that “JA” had provided Hammond with a script to search the emails stolen from Intelligence Consulting Company, and that “JA” would provide the script to associates of Hammond as well. Hammond also introduced Sabu via Jabber to “JA.” In January and February 2012, Sabu used the chatlog Jabber to communicate with Mr.Assange. On 27 February 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing emails that Hammond and others hacked from the Intelligence Consulting Company. On 27 February 2012 Hammond told Sabu, “we started giving JA” materials that had been obtained from other hacks. On 28 February 2012 Hammond complained to Sabu that the incompetence of his fellow hackers was causing him to fail to meet estimates he had given to Mr. Assange about the amount of hacked information he expected to provide to WikiLeaks, stating, “can’t sit on all these targets dicking around when the booty is sitting there ... especially when we are asked to make it happen with WL. We repeated a 2TB number to JA. Now turns out it’s like maybe 100GB. Would have been 40-50GB if I didn’t go and get all the mail from [foreign cybersecurity company].” Hammond then asked for help with ongoing computer intrusion committe d by his associates against victims including a US law enforcement entity, a US political organisation, and a US cybersecurity company. In March 2012, Hammond was arrested.
> In June 2013, media outlets reported that Edward J. Snowden had leaked numerous documents taken from the National Security Agency and was in Hong Kong. It is alleged that, to encourage leakers and hackers to provide stolen materials to WikiLeaks, Mr.Assange and others at WikiLeaks openly displayed their attempts to assist Snowden to evade arrest.
[1] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As...
Local Icelander here, this kid has been known to be a real scumbag to most people here for years with much coverage of his sociopathic tendencies.
https://grapevine.is/?s=siggi+hacker
https://grapevine.is/?s=siggi+hacker
Well, the FBI has been revealed to be thoroughly corrupt.
You can also take it for granted that all the so-called conspiracy theories that are tagged as "misinformation" and "propaganda" by the US media "fact-checkers" will be revealed to be true within a few years. Of-course by then everyone will just shrug and move on since the public has the memory of a goldfish.
You can also take it for granted that all the so-called conspiracy theories that are tagged as "misinformation" and "propaganda" by the US media "fact-checkers" will be revealed to be true within a few years. Of-course by then everyone will just shrug and move on since the public has the memory of a goldfish.
Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has ever had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public about governments, which is why they're targeted. In fact several Pulitzer Prizes have been awarded thanks to their efforts. They've never been shown to put anyone at risk either, a testament to their careful vetting process, showing that they're responsible too.
This is clearly a political attack on someone who has exposed some uncomfortable truths. Even if Assange is a criminal, which I don't think he is, there's no excuse for holding him in the manner which they are, treating him worse than the worst criminals.
Finally it's been shown that the rape accusations were an orchestrated smear campaign as well.
This is clearly a political attack on someone who has exposed some uncomfortable truths. Even if Assange is a criminal, which I don't think he is, there's no excuse for holding him in the manner which they are, treating him worse than the worst criminals.
Finally it's been shown that the rape accusations were an orchestrated smear campaign as well.
“Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has ever had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public about governments“
That isn’t true for their social media:
https://micahflee.com/2019/01/lies-that-wikileaks-tells-you/
That isn’t true for their social media:
https://micahflee.com/2019/01/lies-that-wikileaks-tells-you/
That's a fairly charitable take on WikiLeaks. They host the entirety of the Sony leak on their site that caused me and hundreds of my colleagues to face a increased lifetime risk of fraud and stolen identity.
Hacked by North Korea and made easy by poor security on Sony's part. It sucks when personal information is stolen and published, but that genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back.
> They've never been shown to put anyone at risk
This is false. They've denied putting people at risk, but there's decent evidence that their leaks have directly shared pii and harmed large numbers of random unimportant people.
This is false. They've denied putting people at risk, but there's decent evidence that their leaks have directly shared pii and harmed large numbers of random unimportant people.
Could you share this decent evidence for us who haven't seen it before?
Wikileaks posted diplomatic cables without redacting the names or other forms of PII. Actual journalists from the
New York Times, Der Speigel, Le Monde, The Guardian, and El País all signed a statement saying this was a gross breach of people’s privacy and potentially put these people in danger.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/leader...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cab...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/leader...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cab...
You mean after an "actual journalist" put the password for the cache of all unredacted cables that "actual journalists" received in his book?
To this day, The Guardian refuses to admit that it released the unredacted cables to the public, and blames WikiLeaks for the release. One of The Guardian's own journalists used the decryption key as a chapter title in his book about WikiLeaks. The Guardian's excuse is that they thought the decryption key was temporary. I don't know if people at The Guardian really are that misinformed about how encryption works, or if they're just being deceitful.
Given the publicity around the "poison pill" "insurance" archive, it's difficult to believe that anybody could not understand the severity of leaking that password.
Although not required or authorized to do so, Wikileaks tried to limit the exposure of sources who would be at risk if their identities were exposed. The unredacted information exposed many sources and put lives at risk. The USG blames Wikileaks for this because they released the encrypted archive. I have never heard of an investigation or prosecution into the circumstances of the password release, but if Wikileaks is responsible, then David Leigh should be as well.
https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html
Although not required or authorized to do so, Wikileaks tried to limit the exposure of sources who would be at risk if their identities were exposed. The unredacted information exposed many sources and put lives at risk. The USG blames Wikileaks for this because they released the encrypted archive. I have never heard of an investigation or prosecution into the circumstances of the password release, but if Wikileaks is responsible, then David Leigh should be as well.
https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html
That's because Julian Assange reused the same password on multiple files. At best, it's terrible opsec on his part. At worst, it was deliberate on his part, so he could plausibly claim no responsibility for the fallout. Either way, unless you can prove malicious intent on The Guardian, they have nothing to admit and Julian has some explaining to do.
The Guardian has to admit that it was horribly irresponsible to publish a decryption key, and that they are the ones who actually made the unredacted cables available to the public. They've denounced WikiLeaks for the release, without acknowledging that it was The Guardian that actually made the unredacted cables public.
The Guardian journalist who published the decryption key to the unredacted cables has subsequently acted in bad faith towards WikiLeaks. He's the same guy who wrote the false story about Assange supposedly meeting with Manafort in the Ecuadorian embassy, which The Guardian has still not retracted, despite it being almost certainly false.
The Guardian journalist who published the decryption key to the unredacted cables has subsequently acted in bad faith towards WikiLeaks. He's the same guy who wrote the false story about Assange supposedly meeting with Manafort in the Ecuadorian embassy, which The Guardian has still not retracted, despite it being almost certainly false.
I take it that you have no evidence of malicious intent, since if you did, you would have linked it.
Seriously, why is it so hard to believe that Julian just punked them? It's easy enough to pull off, and honestly more believable from someone who otherwise has impeccable opsec.
Just look at the order of events:
1. Julian gives an encrypted file and its key to The Guardian.
2. In February 2011, the key gets published in a book by The Guardian's journalist.
3. In September 2011, it's discovered that the encrypted file is available via BitTorrent, with the key already public in said book.
4. WikiLeaks "helpfully" publishes all the unredacted information later that month, to "ensure" that no "malicious" actors would "selectively" publish it.
I have a very hard time believing that security professionals like those who run WikiLeaks would let this happen by accident. Step 4 was probably their end-game all along.
Seriously, why is it so hard to believe that Julian just punked them? It's easy enough to pull off, and honestly more believable from someone who otherwise has impeccable opsec.
Just look at the order of events:
1. Julian gives an encrypted file and its key to The Guardian.
2. In February 2011, the key gets published in a book by The Guardian's journalist.
3. In September 2011, it's discovered that the encrypted file is available via BitTorrent, with the key already public in said book.
4. WikiLeaks "helpfully" publishes all the unredacted information later that month, to "ensure" that no "malicious" actors would "selectively" publish it.
I have a very hard time believing that security professionals like those who run WikiLeaks would let this happen by accident. Step 4 was probably their end-game all along.
sauce?
Panama papers were released with names by the same newspapers.
Lol @ “actual journalists”
You do know there is no such thing as journalistic licensing or certification, right? They went to college. They have nothing above anyone else who break news because they are employed by a corporate outlet. That makes me trust them less actually.
You do know there is no such thing as journalistic licensing or certification, right? They went to college. They have nothing above anyone else who break news because they are employed by a corporate outlet. That makes me trust them less actually.
You quote The Guardian, who published the decryption key? That's an interesting choice of source.
This is the reason why I don't feel too bad for Julian Assange, and why I don't refer to him as a "journalist." Not redacting PII is such a rookie mistake that I can't see it as anything other than journalistic malpractice.
You don't feel bad for him because you have misunderstood what actually happened? Wikileaks had an encrypted file but it was a Guardian journalist that published the key to decrypt it. What you are suggesting is that Wikileaks should censor the source files before journalists got them. That is not how proof works. Redacted files isn't proof but tampered evidence. The fault is 100% on the person that leaked the decryption key. Blaming Julian Assange for this leak is jumping to conclusions.
Saint Julian reused the same password on multiple different files. Ask yourself why he might commit such a slipshod error.
> Wikileaks should censor the source files before journalists got them.
WikiLeaks, like anyone, should take prudent steps to avoid doxxing people. If you can't understand why doxxing people is bad, then I have nothing to say to you.
> Wikileaks should censor the source files before journalists got them.
WikiLeaks, like anyone, should take prudent steps to avoid doxxing people. If you can't understand why doxxing people is bad, then I have nothing to say to you.
This has nothing to do with doxxing. You cannot discuss something by using the wrong words to try to force a (false) point. Besides, I don't like Julian assange so the whole Saint thing you got going only make you look childish.
Well you can’t claim he is not a journalist and also accuse him of journalistic malpractice. It’s one or the other.
The two I'm aware of are https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-reportedly-outs-100s-... and https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-he..., which published the names of afghan informants to the us military, and the names, phone numbers, and addresses of half of the Turkish population, respectively.
The first clearly endangered people, the second contained basically nothing of reporting use, it was just a trove of pii
The first clearly endangered people, the second contained basically nothing of reporting use, it was just a trove of pii
Both the leak of the DNC files, and the purported leak of files by a Putin critic, were found to contain numerous forged documents. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russi...)
In a heinous followup, Assange claimed that a murdered DNC staffer was the party responsible for the DNC leak...based on no evidence except Assange's bro-love for Donald Trump. (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/wikileak...)
But sure, let's pretend that nothing Wikileaks has posted has ever been shown to be fake or falsified, or that Assange himself has never lied.
In a heinous followup, Assange claimed that a murdered DNC staffer was the party responsible for the DNC leak...based on no evidence except Assange's bro-love for Donald Trump. (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/wikileak...)
But sure, let's pretend that nothing Wikileaks has posted has ever been shown to be fake or falsified, or that Assange himself has never lied.
The Forbes article you link to does not say that the DNC files contained forgeries. Assange also never said that Seth Rich was responsible for the leak. He was asked about it in an interview and gave an evasive/vague answer.
>Both the leak of the DNC files, and the purported leak of files by a Putin critic, were found to contain numerous forged documents.
Nothing in that article shows any evidence of tainted leaks in the DNC release. It claims some other leak had some tainted links, that they were carried out by the sane group, and that the Clinton team claimed emails were fake.
Wikileaks Twitter account has been full of madness, almost as if it was being run by someone suffering years of torture. That's a separate claim from the validity of the site.
Nothing in that article shows any evidence of tainted leaks in the DNC release. It claims some other leak had some tainted links, that they were carried out by the sane group, and that the Clinton team claimed emails were fake.
Wikileaks Twitter account has been full of madness, almost as if it was being run by someone suffering years of torture. That's a separate claim from the validity of the site.
Important to note that Wikileaks wouldn't publish a retraction anyway, even if they were totally wrong.
Come on...
Come on...
That's a very bold statement when history has shown otherwise. Don't you believe the powers that be would jump at the chance to discredit them? I would be so lucky if the generally corrupt mainstream media should be more like them.
Source? Do you have a relevant example?
Really interesting to see some of the criticisms of federal police and intelligence agencies here, to which I have to agree with.
What I find interesting though is that the public approval rating of these organisations “seems” to have plummeted, I guess once upon a time they could get away with their lies and manipulation but not anymore?
While scrolling, the web page shifts up a couple dozens of pixels (Android, Firefox) . It's very annoying. I had to stop reading after the second paragraph.
Am I the only one?
Am I the only one?
It is a bug when you use VH instead of VW on your height attribute. Always use VW on mobile because of the default behavior on mobile browsers to show the address bar when scrolling.
But that breaks a lot of design assumptions, since many times the use of vh vs vw is to avoid assuming which of the height or width is greater. You’d have to use a min/max calculation to avoid aspect ratio mayhem whn comparing landscape to portrait.
The real big is UI elements that randomly appear and disappear in the browser chrome, such as scroll bars and address bars, that contribute to vh/vw randomly spazzing.
The real big is UI elements that randomly appear and disappear in the browser chrome, such as scroll bars and address bars, that contribute to vh/vw randomly spazzing.
You are not the only one. Site is rough.
Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (and just as much the propaganda build up to it), I believe nothing Western msm says.
Assange was stitched up, but we still constantly have to hear claims of the superiority of Western "democracies", freedom of speech and justice.
Assange was stitched up, but we still constantly have to hear claims of the superiority of Western "democracies", freedom of speech and justice.
What is more dangerous? A government lying to you to protect the country or their power or an obsessed hacker who wants to expose all secrets with little or no consideration of the consequences. The truth is somewhere between these two extremes.
No. Those in power have compromised the values of their own country and want to safe their hides. There is little gray area, the Iraq war has been started under false premises for imperalistic and strategic reasons. Assange is no threat here.
This abuse of power won't end well.
Nothing more jarring than the harrowing treatment of Assange by the US, contrasted with their subsequent lecturing and sanctioning of Belarus re Roman Protasevich, or Russia re Navalny.
Zero integrity.
Zero integrity.
Has the US tried to extra judicially murder Assange?
Do the US need to extra judicially murder Assange in order to make an example of him?
I can imagine what would happen if Russia tried the same tactic as the US and used diplomatic channels in order to successfully influence the legal systems in countries like the UK and Sweden.
I can imagine what would happen if Russia tried the same tactic as the US and used diplomatic channels in order to successfully influence the legal systems in countries like the UK and Sweden.
Are you proud of what Assange actually did in Sweden? Taking off a condom mid sex or lying about wearing one?
It's called stealthing and very much a terrible thing to do.
It's called stealthing and very much a terrible thing to do.
Those charges magically appeared when the US wanted him on their soil, and equally magically disappeared when it looked like they had their hands on him.
Is inventing a rape charge in order to kidnap a journalist also a terrible thing to do, in your opinion?
Is inventing a rape charge in order to kidnap a journalist also a terrible thing to do, in your opinion?
I am very disappointed in Sweden when they chose to spend several millions in disproportion on this case rather than all the other rape and murder cases which Sweden have.
I am disappointed in Sweden that a prosecutor went against Swedish law, was found to be guilty of Swedish law, and yet received no punishment. It the only known case in Swedish history where the crime was public news for years and yet the prosecutor continued without changing course.
I am disappointed that when it became known that US diplomats has been involved in influencing the Swedish case, nothing happen.
I am disappointed that a political active prosecutor took over a case from an other prosecutor in a rather explicit way after getting a "tip" to do so.
I am disappointed that the police somehow "leaked" protected documents to journalist.
I am disappointed that the Swedish government opened the case just after Wikileaks released a bunch of classified diplomatic cables, and dropped the case in order to allow the US to take it over.
I am disappointed that the Swedish government had zero interest in investigate the case.
I am disappointed that the Swedish police ignored the wishes of the women.
If you want to talk about stealthing we can do that, or if Assange is a respectful to his sexual partners, or about the finer details of Swedish categories of the lesser degree sexual offenses. It has nothing more with the actually case, than when a police murder someone for a parking violation. Severe corruption is a separate problem than if Assange are guilty of the Swedish charges or not.
I am disappointed in Sweden that a prosecutor went against Swedish law, was found to be guilty of Swedish law, and yet received no punishment. It the only known case in Swedish history where the crime was public news for years and yet the prosecutor continued without changing course.
I am disappointed that when it became known that US diplomats has been involved in influencing the Swedish case, nothing happen.
I am disappointed that a political active prosecutor took over a case from an other prosecutor in a rather explicit way after getting a "tip" to do so.
I am disappointed that the police somehow "leaked" protected documents to journalist.
I am disappointed that the Swedish government opened the case just after Wikileaks released a bunch of classified diplomatic cables, and dropped the case in order to allow the US to take it over.
I am disappointed that the Swedish government had zero interest in investigate the case.
I am disappointed that the Swedish police ignored the wishes of the women.
If you want to talk about stealthing we can do that, or if Assange is a respectful to his sexual partners, or about the finer details of Swedish categories of the lesser degree sexual offenses. It has nothing more with the actually case, than when a police murder someone for a parking violation. Severe corruption is a separate problem than if Assange are guilty of the Swedish charges or not.
You have fallen victim to and are repeating a propaganda lie.
As documented by judicial procedure (Swedish equivalent to FOIA), the "stealthing" was a pure invention by the police. It was added days later _as ordered by email_ by the hierarchical superior of the policewoman who typed the statement of the second woman. This was done against the original wishes of both women, and contrary to what they originally said. Even calling it a statement is a misnomer (read more further on that subject).
That happened after tabloids had published that a rape had allegedly happened, somehow with the name of the victims. The changed was annulled later, after the fact, when this was found out.
Proof/source : you can see said email in full as part of the interview by Republik.ch of the UN Special Reporteur of Torture. Link https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
---
What the story actually is, as documented as a matter of judicial procedure :
The first woman had had consensual relations with Assange, knowingly without a condom, as she herself witnessed; the second woman had consensual sex one day after; she found out after he left the condom was broken; they found out about each other a little later.
Before asking Assange directly, they wanted to know if they could make Assange take an HIV test. They went to ask a policewoman friend of the first if that was possible. Neither didn't want to make a statement, nor sign one, nor report a crime.
The policewoman wrote it down just in case. Two hours later Swedish tabloids report Assange raped somebody. The condom, as tested later on, somehow contained no DNA of Assange's.
There was lot more fishy happening on the prosecutor's side, but it's beside this comments' points.
As documented by judicial procedure (Swedish equivalent to FOIA), the "stealthing" was a pure invention by the police. It was added days later _as ordered by email_ by the hierarchical superior of the policewoman who typed the statement of the second woman. This was done against the original wishes of both women, and contrary to what they originally said. Even calling it a statement is a misnomer (read more further on that subject).
That happened after tabloids had published that a rape had allegedly happened, somehow with the name of the victims. The changed was annulled later, after the fact, when this was found out.
Proof/source : you can see said email in full as part of the interview by Republik.ch of the UN Special Reporteur of Torture. Link https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
---
What the story actually is, as documented as a matter of judicial procedure :
The first woman had had consensual relations with Assange, knowingly without a condom, as she herself witnessed; the second woman had consensual sex one day after; she found out after he left the condom was broken; they found out about each other a little later.
Before asking Assange directly, they wanted to know if they could make Assange take an HIV test. They went to ask a policewoman friend of the first if that was possible. Neither didn't want to make a statement, nor sign one, nor report a crime.
The policewoman wrote it down just in case. Two hours later Swedish tabloids report Assange raped somebody. The condom, as tested later on, somehow contained no DNA of Assange's.
There was lot more fishy happening on the prosecutor's side, but it's beside this comments' points.
You just lost the discussion.
> Do the US need to extra judicially murder Assange in order to make an example of him?
No, but they’d at least need to attempt it to be tossed in the same bucket as Russia re: Navalny.
No, but they’d at least need to attempt it to be tossed in the same bucket as Russia re: Navalny.
That's an unproven allegation. Navalny was actually poisoned.
These were claims made in court, during formal hearings. They weren’t disputed, and as such, they are part of the official court record and are worth more than random hearsay.
The US’ repsponse (as quoted) was that these allegations were “wholly irrelevant.” That doesn’t sound like a denunciation or denial to me.
The US’ repsponse (as quoted) was that these allegations were “wholly irrelevant.” That doesn’t sound like a denunciation or denial to me.
Anybody can make claims in court and the US government is hardly going to confirm or deny poisoning someone.
It's an unproven allegation and a world away from Navalny who was actually poisoned.
It's an unproven allegation and a world away from Navalny who was actually poisoned.
Why would the US government not deny poisoning someone?
I know HN loves Assange but comparing an unsubstantiated stamenent that US persons talked about extreme measures, vs actual poisoning is pretty weak.
[deleted]
fscksnowden(1)
beebeepka(2)
Mars will be rough but at least there won’t be a tyrannical police state there to bend you over.
Rats tend to be complete sociopath's and in many cases psychopaths, the police need to be held more accountable for onboarding these personalities instead of covering their own asses. There are several cases in Canada in which paid informants lied for years (decades) causing massive harm, and 2 cases which ended in mass murder, while still on police payroll. Yet the police somehow wash their hands of it all.
In this case, he was diagnosed as such. The article claims he simply did it to avoid prosecution.
Stundin is a tabloid. Let's wait until this report is confirmed by more reputable sources before declaring Assange innocent.
I'm not sure where you're getting that its a tabloid it's one of the more reputable papers here in Iceland, and broke the Panama papers stories here years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stundin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stundin
The front page of Stundin shows a number of articles about celebrities and uses the word "scandal" more than a dozen times.
The Panama Papers were first reported by the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung, not Stundin, but claiming credit for another paper's work is pretty standard for a tabloid.
Sure, it might report on real news occasionally. A number of U.S. tabloids have reported on scandals and crimes that eventually turned out to be true.
But if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it's probably a duck.
The Panama Papers were first reported by the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung, not Stundin, but claiming credit for another paper's work is pretty standard for a tabloid.
Sure, it might report on real news occasionally. A number of U.S. tabloids have reported on scandals and crimes that eventually turned out to be true.
But if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it's probably a duck.
The size of the physical paper makes a difference to the integrity of the content?
Never heard of Stundin before, but it reads like a pretty well done report.
I honestly have very little sympathy for Assange at this point. The entire organization either appears to have been a honey pot or front for foreign election interference.
If the wikileaks organisation does not look normal to you, it's probably because you did not participate in any political activism. For me all this amateurism looks familiar
This is a badly uninformed opinion
Not at all: from what I've seen, that sort of thing doesn't have to start out as intentional nefariousness. We've just got some state actors who've developed real skill and determination at twisting all sorts of existing entities to their ends: this is considerably easier in the service of chaos politics than it would be if they were trying to set up an orderly, top-down spy network or some such thing.
You don't have to start OUT as a honeypot or a tool of foreign intelligence. It would be a pretty lousy intelligence service that had to start with pre-existing cooperation and alliance. Much better to work at twisting things, and then rely on rationalization and perhaps back it up with threat and intimidation. There's nothing new about any of this, it's just done with flair, ingenuity and determination. Or has been: I think there's a limit to how far that can go.
You don't have to start OUT as a honeypot or a tool of foreign intelligence. It would be a pretty lousy intelligence service that had to start with pre-existing cooperation and alliance. Much better to work at twisting things, and then rely on rationalization and perhaps back it up with threat and intimidation. There's nothing new about any of this, it's just done with flair, ingenuity and determination. Or has been: I think there's a limit to how far that can go.
Look to cryptome for what it would've looked like if it wasn't an engine for Assange's ego. The people who just wanted to host leaks left more than a decade ago.
The org admitted to pushing it's own political positions. No idea why people defend the thing. All they publish now is the result of Russian hacks.
And he's not a journalist.
The org admitted to pushing it's own political positions. No idea why people defend the thing. All they publish now is the result of Russian hacks.
And he's not a journalist.
Accusing them of pushing political positions and the saying they're not journalists feels like conflicting arguments in this day and age.
It's also difficult to appear politically neutral when publishing truths that are (or should be, but aren't) existentially inconvenient to any particular person or group.
It's also difficult to appear politically neutral when publishing truths that are (or should be, but aren't) existentially inconvenient to any particular person or group.
It's not difficult. Just don't editorialise. Leaks are the easiest case. Just host everything. Which is why I mention Cryptome, liveleaks would've been an example too.
They haven't done that. They've been selective, they've pushed agendas with their accounts, and they've sat on other leaks that other places haven't.
They haven't done that. They've been selective, they've pushed agendas with their accounts, and they've sat on other leaks that other places haven't.
For example to this day barely anybody seems aware about the fact how Swedish police changed witness testimonies to create rape accusations that were never even made by the two women, to have these nasty accusations leaked to the press only hours later, in the middle of the night.
That's only one of the many findings by the UN rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer. His investigation into the Assange case is probably one of the best and most neutral takes on it, but if true also a really scary one [0]
[0] https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...