Abuses show Assange case was never about law(jonathan-cook.net)
jonathan-cook.net
Abuses show Assange case was never about law
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2019-05-27/abuses-show-assange-case-was-never-about-law/
144 comments
> that this is a case of treatment amounting to psychological torture
I don't deny his symptoms, but I strongly deny that "his treatment" by others led to those symptoms.
His own decisions and actions, namely, to live in a cramped room for years, and not going to see a doctor, led to those.
Now, you may argue that he was right to do so. But it was by his own volition. Sweden would have given him first-class medical treatment and much better living conditions, even if he would have been put in a prison cell (which isn't too likely).
I don't deny his symptoms, but I strongly deny that "his treatment" by others led to those symptoms.
His own decisions and actions, namely, to live in a cramped room for years, and not going to see a doctor, led to those.
Now, you may argue that he was right to do so. But it was by his own volition. Sweden would have given him first-class medical treatment and much better living conditions, even if he would have been put in a prison cell (which isn't too likely).
This is a deeply ignorant statement considering he's currently looking at being extracted to the US, who are considering a 175 year sentence. The article you're commenting on lists all the anomalies that happened with his case.
The choice appears to be stay in the embassy and hope his lawyers could have closed the warrant or spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement as Chelsea Manning was. To say any of this was his choice is an incredibly cruel take.
The choice appears to be stay in the embassy and hope his lawyers could have closed the warrant or spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement as Chelsea Manning was. To say any of this was his choice is an incredibly cruel take.
I agree with you. I believe he even offered to present himself to Sweden if he could be guaranteed that he would not be extradited to the US. A Swedish prison would be a country club in comparison. But I think the concern of the UN here is that the circumstances were prolonged due to the refusal of all states to abide by a more or less binding UN ruling.
Regardless of positions on the issue, it's important to recognize that the UN has essentially no power. The only time it does is when certain powerful member states (mostly security council) agree to back a measure. In other words, half the UN's member states voting to back a measure does not matter if said member states are small ones. Same is true of enforcement: there has to be consensus, which is unlikely to happen against America.
> more or less binding UN ruling
Less. As in "not at all binding".
Less. As in "not at all binding".
"Binding", in that the parties had signed the convention and agreed to "uphold" such rulings. They instead claimed that "Assange was free to leave at any time", i.e. that they were "upholding" the ruling. At the very least, Assange would be entitled to compensation as a means of enforcing the ruling, should the states refuse to comply. Which court would rule about such compensation is not clear to me. Perhaps the European court of Human Rights, but that is speculation on my part.
You're right, I concede that point.
Neither the UK nor Sweden would give him guarantees that he would not be extradited to the US. The UK stopped all attempts by Ecuador to leave the UK (he became a Ecuadorian citizen and was appointed as a diplomat, but was refused diplomatic immunity by the UK). Assange stated many times that he wanted to go to Sweden, but only on the condition they wouldn't extradite him to the US.
So, I think staying the embassy was the only option for him, given that the US clearly wanted to have Assange and had already tortured Chelsea Manning for simply being the source of a leak. Not to mention that "Collateral Murder" was literally a video about the US military murdering journalists and then killing first responders. If they were willing to cover up their killing of US journalists, god knows what they'd be willing to do in Assange's case.
So, I think staying the embassy was the only option for him, given that the US clearly wanted to have Assange and had already tortured Chelsea Manning for simply being the source of a leak. Not to mention that "Collateral Murder" was literally a video about the US military murdering journalists and then killing first responders. If they were willing to cover up their killing of US journalists, god knows what they'd be willing to do in Assange's case.
> No state in the world gives a non-citizen political asylum to avoid a rape trial
The granting of political asylum does not prove the crimes alleged are solely political. That this point is granted zero further attention weakens every subsequent claim.
The granting of political asylum is itself a political act. Particularly when extended by an executive. When Assange’s asylum was granted, Assange was popular and well known. The Ecuadorean leader drew power from an anti-American base. Years later, most Americans don’t know who Assange is [1]. The leadership in Ecuador changed, and with it the political incentives that made Assange valuable [2].
I don’t think Assange fled the Swedish charges per se. But there is insufficient evidence to show he didn’t commit any bona fide crimes under U.S. law. Yes, he exposed war crimes. But he also published sensitive information of zero public benefit yet detrimental to those exposed, e.g. agents in terrorist organisations or the medical records of gay men in Saudi Arabia [3].
I am unfamiliar as to how those balance under American law. But to dismiss the latter solely because of the former is to say a good deed single-handedly excuses bad deeds, which isn’t justice.
[1] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuadors-president-turns-on-his...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-post...
[4] https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6024868-Assa...
The granting of political asylum does not prove the crimes alleged are solely political. That this point is granted zero further attention weakens every subsequent claim.
The granting of political asylum is itself a political act. Particularly when extended by an executive. When Assange’s asylum was granted, Assange was popular and well known. The Ecuadorean leader drew power from an anti-American base. Years later, most Americans don’t know who Assange is [1]. The leadership in Ecuador changed, and with it the political incentives that made Assange valuable [2].
I don’t think Assange fled the Swedish charges per se. But there is insufficient evidence to show he didn’t commit any bona fide crimes under U.S. law. Yes, he exposed war crimes. But he also published sensitive information of zero public benefit yet detrimental to those exposed, e.g. agents in terrorist organisations or the medical records of gay men in Saudi Arabia [3].
I am unfamiliar as to how those balance under American law. But to dismiss the latter solely because of the former is to say a good deed single-handedly excuses bad deeds, which isn’t justice.
[1] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuadors-president-turns-on-his...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-post...
[4] https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6024868-Assa...
There is a lot of FUD spread about what WikiLeaks has published. I see the same accusations being repeated over and over, rarely with any explanation of the actual meat of the accusations.
For example, you say that WikiLeaks has released a huge amount of material of zero public interest, and give the example of them supposedly outing a gay man in Saudi Arabia. WikiLeaks actually published a huge cache of Saudi diplomatic cables, which are obviously of immense public interest. Those cables detail the Saudi government's backroom dealings with foreign countries and internal repression. One cable mentions the arrest by the Saudi government of a gay man. That is the cable that people use to accuse WikiLeaks of outing someone in Saudi Arabia.
For example, you say that WikiLeaks has released a huge amount of material of zero public interest, and give the example of them supposedly outing a gay man in Saudi Arabia. WikiLeaks actually published a huge cache of Saudi diplomatic cables, which are obviously of immense public interest. Those cables detail the Saudi government's backroom dealings with foreign countries and internal repression. One cable mentions the arrest by the Saudi government of a gay man. That is the cable that people use to accuse WikiLeaks of outing someone in Saudi Arabia.
> But there is insufficient evidence to show he didn’t commit any bona fide crimes under U.S. law.
Assange is an Australian, currently in the U.K., and was accused of rape in Sweden. We shouldn't let the apparently global reach of U.S. law go unexamined.
Assange is an Australian, currently in the U.K., and was accused of rape in Sweden. We shouldn't let the apparently global reach of U.S. law go unexamined.
So as an American, with an American targeted business (and having never visited the EU), doesn't the EU's GDPR law make the same attempt at global reach should a European decide, unbeknownst to me, to visit my web properties? Or are you suggesting that laws that try to assert such global scope are wrong in general?
That's a good question - if your business has no presence in the EU, then I would think the GDPR is toothless? But yes, I don't like such laws in general.
Although the attempt is certainly not the same, as I don't think you can get extradited for GDPR violations.
Although the attempt is certainly not the same, as I don't think you can get extradited for GDPR violations.
Your first footnote doesn't seem to support the claim that most American's don't know who Assange is. Did you perhaps link to the wrong article?
That would make me really sad if its true.
That would make me really sad if its true.
How could anyone possibly think this was ever about the law? When he first published "Collateral Murder", you knew what it was about, and you knew how it would (eventually) end for him. Does anyone not living under a rock, think what is happening to Assange is even remotely based on law and justice? spoiler alert: it's not!
> you knew how it would (eventually) end for him
Deep Throat, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein did fine [1].
I’m not convinced that, had Wikileaks filtered their material like the ICIJ did with the Panama Papers [2], they would have been charged. Ignoring the collateral damage caused by Assange’s decision not to curate, like every journalist is trained to do, doesn’t make it immaterial.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_%28Watergate%29
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
Deep Throat, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein did fine [1].
I’m not convinced that, had Wikileaks filtered their material like the ICIJ did with the Panama Papers [2], they would have been charged. Ignoring the collateral damage caused by Assange’s decision not to curate, like every journalist is trained to do, doesn’t make it immaterial.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_%28Watergate%29
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
My first reaction to this is that the climate has changed since then. The use of the Espionage Act and nonjudicial targeting of reporters and leakers has been on the rise for a few decades; it's not just Assange but Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Joseph Wilson, and Barrett Brown. If James Bamford published the equivalent of Inside the Puzzle Palace today, I'd fully expect him to face prosecution. The softer reaction to the Panama Papers had less to do with protections for responsible publication than with the leaker never being caught, and the near-total absence of notable Americans.
But honestly, saying earlier leakers did fine also seems pretty selective. Deep Throat did fine because he kept his identity secret for 30 years. Woodward did well because his publications forced Nixon to resign, producing an administration that wasn't being directly harmed by the leaks.
Before Nixon's resignation, those associated with leaks suffered quite a bit more. Daniel Ellsberg had his medical records stolen from his psychiatrist's office. When Nixon thought the Brookings Institute had Vietnam files, he ordered their office robbed and later planned a firebombing to enable an FBI raid; this was apparently preempted only because the Pentagon Papers were published. Other reporters and editors were regularly targeted with tax audits for criticizing Nixon. Martha Mitchell was kidnapped and sedated to prevent her from discussing her husband's role in Watergate. Many of the people targeted most heavily, for instance for FBI harassment and break-ins, were activists instead of reporters, but Assange's place on that continuum is hardly clear.
It does seem excessive to claim that this was an inevitable outcome. But I don't think the recent or Nixon-era experiences of leakers justify any belief whatsoever that responsible leakers face less retribution.
But honestly, saying earlier leakers did fine also seems pretty selective. Deep Throat did fine because he kept his identity secret for 30 years. Woodward did well because his publications forced Nixon to resign, producing an administration that wasn't being directly harmed by the leaks.
Before Nixon's resignation, those associated with leaks suffered quite a bit more. Daniel Ellsberg had his medical records stolen from his psychiatrist's office. When Nixon thought the Brookings Institute had Vietnam files, he ordered their office robbed and later planned a firebombing to enable an FBI raid; this was apparently preempted only because the Pentagon Papers were published. Other reporters and editors were regularly targeted with tax audits for criticizing Nixon. Martha Mitchell was kidnapped and sedated to prevent her from discussing her husband's role in Watergate. Many of the people targeted most heavily, for instance for FBI harassment and break-ins, were activists instead of reporters, but Assange's place on that continuum is hardly clear.
It does seem excessive to claim that this was an inevitable outcome. But I don't think the recent or Nixon-era experiences of leakers justify any belief whatsoever that responsible leakers face less retribution.
All of your examples of journalists being harassed by the government relate to Nixon...who was on the verge of impeachment for his abuses of power...
Of the 4 examples you provided, only Wilson didn't violate any laws. Drake and Kiriakou were government intelligence officers and violated federal laws regarding the disclosure of classified information. For Kirakou, the problem was not that he blew the whistle--the problem was how. He could have blown the whistle in a manner that protected classified information, such as by reporting to the Congressional oversight committee, which is what Drake tried to do. Drake was shielded from prosecution because he attempted to follow proper procedure all the way to the extremes and only breached disclosure rules when he was rebuffed. Kirakou didn't even try, which is why he ended up serving time. Brown may have committed a number of hacking-related crimes while a member of Anonymous; his criminal charges related to that and not to his reporting. (Being a journalist only shields you for journalism-related activities. It's not a magic shield to protect you from any crime you commit.) Wilson was never charged with a violation of the Espionage Act, so I'm not sure why he's on your list....
Of the 4 examples you provided, only Wilson didn't violate any laws. Drake and Kiriakou were government intelligence officers and violated federal laws regarding the disclosure of classified information. For Kirakou, the problem was not that he blew the whistle--the problem was how. He could have blown the whistle in a manner that protected classified information, such as by reporting to the Congressional oversight committee, which is what Drake tried to do. Drake was shielded from prosecution because he attempted to follow proper procedure all the way to the extremes and only breached disclosure rules when he was rebuffed. Kirakou didn't even try, which is why he ended up serving time. Brown may have committed a number of hacking-related crimes while a member of Anonymous; his criminal charges related to that and not to his reporting. (Being a journalist only shields you for journalism-related activities. It's not a magic shield to protect you from any crime you commit.) Wilson was never charged with a violation of the Espionage Act, so I'm not sure why he's on your list....
Do you think the rape charges were made from nothing?
Did you follow the Snowden case? In early interviews he talked about working for the CIA and in order to coerce a senior official, they got him drunk and then had the cops arrest him for DUI. Then told him if he didn't comply, the DUI charges would end his career. Can you put 2 and 2 together here?
YUMad(3)
The whole "didn't flee rape charges" (or some form of that claim as the 'charges' thing hadn't happened at that time IIRC) situation is always odd to me.
Sweeden considers espionage a political crime and does not extradite people for political crimes. Sweeden seems like a great place to be if you're wanted for political crimes. Not a great situation in life, but a good place to be for that.
The usual theory in response to that is that the US was going to kidnap him from Sweeden or something (it seems to be the standard response I get). I find the idea that a kidnapping would be less likely in the UK or Ecuador fairly absurd. If the US (or any nation) really wanted him that bad, it seems like a first world country that doesn't extradite political crimes would be a RELATIVELY great place to be... and if things are as folks say about governments wanting to kidnap him, I think they could have done it long before the embassy events too.
I think Assange at some point (maybe the start, who knows) really has struggled with the "truth" in favor of grooming his own narrative. This is hardly unique to him, politicians do it all the time too, but it also makes his stated motives and explanations hard to belive. On their old Facebook page (not sure if they still had one) in the early days if you followed up and asked "hey want happened to what you said you were going to release today" they'd delete your post in short order, and any post about their past plans to release whatever it is they had promised ... IMO their willingness to control the information for their own purposes seemed to betray whatever people wanted Wikileaks to be. Not that they should just dump it without consideration but their actions did not seem to follow the ideals.
This article talks about "never about the law", and yet in the end he's charged with helping someone try to break into a computer. IMO that is a step beyond what a journalist should do. That's the law, it's a legitimate law IMO, and we'll see how the trial goes as for proving it and what if any punishment there is.
Sweeden considers espionage a political crime and does not extradite people for political crimes. Sweeden seems like a great place to be if you're wanted for political crimes. Not a great situation in life, but a good place to be for that.
The usual theory in response to that is that the US was going to kidnap him from Sweeden or something (it seems to be the standard response I get). I find the idea that a kidnapping would be less likely in the UK or Ecuador fairly absurd. If the US (or any nation) really wanted him that bad, it seems like a first world country that doesn't extradite political crimes would be a RELATIVELY great place to be... and if things are as folks say about governments wanting to kidnap him, I think they could have done it long before the embassy events too.
I think Assange at some point (maybe the start, who knows) really has struggled with the "truth" in favor of grooming his own narrative. This is hardly unique to him, politicians do it all the time too, but it also makes his stated motives and explanations hard to belive. On their old Facebook page (not sure if they still had one) in the early days if you followed up and asked "hey want happened to what you said you were going to release today" they'd delete your post in short order, and any post about their past plans to release whatever it is they had promised ... IMO their willingness to control the information for their own purposes seemed to betray whatever people wanted Wikileaks to be. Not that they should just dump it without consideration but their actions did not seem to follow the ideals.
This article talks about "never about the law", and yet in the end he's charged with helping someone try to break into a computer. IMO that is a step beyond what a journalist should do. That's the law, it's a legitimate law IMO, and we'll see how the trial goes as for proving it and what if any punishment there is.
Might not extradite for political crimes, but they straight up let CIA kidnap people from their soil. If Assange was returned to Sweden, he'd be let out on 'house arrest' and he'd just dissapear into the dark one night.
As long as there will be Russian subs sailing under the nose of the Swedish authorities in Swedish teritorial waters then I’m pretty sure every Swedish government will play by the rules dictated by the US.
A country like Switzerland can afford to act a little bit more neutral because they are located in the middle of Europe, with no close enemy in sight, but when you share the same sea with the Russians things are different. Come to think of it even the Swiss had to renounce part of their famous banking secrecy when the American IRS came asking for questions.
A country like Switzerland can afford to act a little bit more neutral because they are located in the middle of Europe, with no close enemy in sight, but when you share the same sea with the Russians things are different. Come to think of it even the Swiss had to renounce part of their famous banking secrecy when the American IRS came asking for questions.
Edit, oops I misunderstood your post, now I get it.
That's not a particularly logical reason. If the CIA was that hell bent on extrajudiciously killing Assange, then he picked a terrible place for protection. The Ecuadorian government is rife with corruption and England is part of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. The CIA would have had no problem getting to Assange if they really wanted to. He would have been safer in Sweden.
If you will notice, Assange is not being extradited to Sweden, he is being extradited to the USA.
Or in other words, this fear of being extradited to the US was completely justified, and everyone who thought otherwise was wrong, including you.
You are wrong. He is being sent to the US. That proves you wrong, and makes everything you have to say about Sweden incorrect, because he is being sent to the US.
Or in other words, this fear of being extradited to the US was completely justified, and everyone who thought otherwise was wrong, including you.
You are wrong. He is being sent to the US. That proves you wrong, and makes everything you have to say about Sweden incorrect, because he is being sent to the US.
From the UK. Whereas if he had he gone to face trial in Sweden in the first place, he would have to be extradited from Sweden.
At the end of the day, he was going to be sent to the US.
That is exactly what the "conspiracy theorist" predicted, and exactly what happened.
If you thought otherwise, then you were wrong. Full stop.
That is exactly what the "conspiracy theorist" predicted, and exactly what happened.
If you thought otherwise, then you were wrong. Full stop.
Assange's argument not to be extradited to Sweden was that he could then be extradited to the US from there. This was patently absurd given the much closer cooperation between the UK and the US, and this has been demonstrated because the US is extraditing him directly from the UK.
That the US would try to extradite him was never really in doubt. The conspiracy theory was that the Swedish charges were trumped up because it would be easier to extradite him from Sweden.
That the US would try to extradite him was never really in doubt. The conspiracy theory was that the Swedish charges were trumped up because it would be easier to extradite him from Sweden.
This is a hard read as so much of it is "I don't like this opinion I hear, here are some vied insults about people who share that view".
There doesn't seem to be any real critical thinking about Assange's actual actions here, or taking any accusations directed at him seriously.
To some extent this blog post takes the law as seriously as it claims the government(s) take it.
There doesn't seem to be any real critical thinking about Assange's actual actions here, or taking any accusations directed at him seriously.
To some extent this blog post takes the law as seriously as it claims the government(s) take it.
The system is rigged but our society lacks the idealism necessary to make a change. We have no shared values. The only thing we agree about is who has power... So whoever that is can decide what values should be upheld; unfortunately those people are usually greedy psychopaths whose entire value systems revolve around personal aggrandisement and enrichment.
Our system empowers psychopaths because those people are attracted by power more than any other kind of person. I think the best solution is to abolish democracy and to replace it by a random number generator which elects government officials by random (kind of like jury duty). Randomn selection is the best way to prevent a system from being gamed.
Our system empowers psychopaths because those people are attracted by power more than any other kind of person. I think the best solution is to abolish democracy and to replace it by a random number generator which elects government officials by random (kind of like jury duty). Randomn selection is the best way to prevent a system from being gamed.
The biggest issue here imo is he encouraged his sources to get more information for him in way that could be considered to have a alleviated him of the protections a journalist would normally receive. I used to be a fan of Assange but hes lost his way entirely. That being said the US government ought not to be prosecuting actual whistleblowers.
He starts by asserting that things which are incompatible with his personal opinions are factual errors or some artifact of a corporate media conspiracy.
He doesn’t say “wake up sheeple” but this is unlikely to result in a good discussion and he has no new information or analysis to contribute.
He doesn’t say “wake up sheeple” but this is unlikely to result in a good discussion and he has no new information or analysis to contribute.
He's compiling a list of existing information that, as per his assertion, every media outlet seems to ignore which therefore serves to misinform the readership.
The author isn't attempting to add anything new, he's merely trying to reincorporate the facts back into a narrative that has strayed from the appropriate journalistic path.
The facts presented plainly is the contribution.
The author isn't attempting to add anything new, he's merely trying to reincorporate the facts back into a narrative that has strayed from the appropriate journalistic path.
The facts presented plainly is the contribution.
Here's an exercise: try to find an actual fact in that blog post and then look to see whether it was in fact not covered in the stories about Assange. For example, “he wasn't fleeing rape charges” is true only to the extent that journalists said “charges” without explaining that it was an arrest warrant which could lead to those charges — that was heavily covered at the time and for the subsequent years in which it ended up, among other things, being litigated to the U.K. Supreme Court[1], all of which got a ton of publicity for years.
Again, I'm not saying anything about the actual merits of the case or the conduct of any of the parties involved, only that I don't think a good discussion will come out of an inflamatory blog post by someone who lacks particular legal expertise, knowledge about the case, and seems to be using it as grist for preexisting grievances about “corporate media”.
Accordingly, I'm not going to reply further.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
Again, I'm not saying anything about the actual merits of the case or the conduct of any of the parties involved, only that I don't think a good discussion will come out of an inflamatory blog post by someone who lacks particular legal expertise, knowledge about the case, and seems to be using it as grist for preexisting grievances about “corporate media”.
Accordingly, I'm not going to reply further.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
The fact that he illustrated is: how the media keeps ignoring salient points about the case. They consistently get it wrong. That consistency is not a mistake, it's by design.
>every media outlet seems to ignore
I feel like that phrase gets bounded about all the time when people don't see their own narrative parroted back to them. Same with the following part of the sentence.
I feel like that phrase gets bounded about all the time when people don't see their own narrative parroted back to them. Same with the following part of the sentence.
How so? That no rape charge against Assange does or did exist is a matter of fact, not opinion... As is the fact that the extradition warrant (for questioning over an alleged sexual assault) was issued by the Swedish prosecutor and not the judiciary.
I think it’s fair to say that the quoted wording in the Guardian is clearly factually incorrect on those points at least.
I think it’s fair to say that the quoted wording in the Guardian is clearly factually incorrect on those points at least.
It is unfortunate, the world has to be seen in black and white terms. The hit piece on The Guardian misses the mark here, yet the more you know about The Guardian the more you realise what the paper 'guards' and for whom.
There is no guarding of the truth in the abstract sense plus there is definite lying by omission. The paper is a left-wing gatekeeper, giving out enough of the truth to keep people doing things like going to anti-Trump rallies but not thinking that actual change is possible.
In this context of gatekeeping you can expect the paper to be 'clickbaiting' the readers with lots of Assange stuff. Supporting Assange and wanting him to get fairly treated is popular with the readers, none of whom would dare advance a controversial truth themselves.
When push comes to shove the Guardian are on the warmonger side, which is unfortunate if you have been a life long reader of the paper. They get orders from on high about what they can and cannot say, if there is a D-notice they will oblige rather than go front page.
It is not that hard to research examples of this, for a while 'off-guardian' did a good job of doing so. But even then they did not get into the D-notice stuff, where, incredible as it seems for a democracy, you can have facts and stories vanish into thin air on the government's say so. This is also the case in the U.S. where Special Administrative Measures can be used to make a story completely disappear. By the time this happens to a story you really do have a 'revolutionary truth' out of place with the times and deeply taboo. For this reason no examples can be cited, but this is something to bear in mind next time there is something weird like the Scripal incident.
My point being that although this is not a helpful article, The Guardian are not whiter than white, they fulfil a very important role in public diplomacy.
There is no guarding of the truth in the abstract sense plus there is definite lying by omission. The paper is a left-wing gatekeeper, giving out enough of the truth to keep people doing things like going to anti-Trump rallies but not thinking that actual change is possible.
In this context of gatekeeping you can expect the paper to be 'clickbaiting' the readers with lots of Assange stuff. Supporting Assange and wanting him to get fairly treated is popular with the readers, none of whom would dare advance a controversial truth themselves.
When push comes to shove the Guardian are on the warmonger side, which is unfortunate if you have been a life long reader of the paper. They get orders from on high about what they can and cannot say, if there is a D-notice they will oblige rather than go front page.
It is not that hard to research examples of this, for a while 'off-guardian' did a good job of doing so. But even then they did not get into the D-notice stuff, where, incredible as it seems for a democracy, you can have facts and stories vanish into thin air on the government's say so. This is also the case in the U.S. where Special Administrative Measures can be used to make a story completely disappear. By the time this happens to a story you really do have a 'revolutionary truth' out of place with the times and deeply taboo. For this reason no examples can be cited, but this is something to bear in mind next time there is something weird like the Scripal incident.
My point being that although this is not a helpful article, The Guardian are not whiter than white, they fulfil a very important role in public diplomacy.
> When Assange’s popular recognition fell, and Ecuador’s political incentives changed, the asylum was rescinded.
An important side note: this is the why the state always attacks the personality and popularity of activists, and why it's important to defend personalities and people.
For example, let me say that, having met Cody Wilson several times and spending several hours with him on a couple of occasions (and moderating a panel on which he sat), I found him to be an absolute standup guy. He seems like a genuine patriot to me and a person of big heart and bravery.
An important side note: this is the why the state always attacks the personality and popularity of activists, and why it's important to defend personalities and people.
For example, let me say that, having met Cody Wilson several times and spending several hours with him on a couple of occasions (and moderating a panel on which he sat), I found him to be an absolute standup guy. He seems like a genuine patriot to me and a person of big heart and bravery.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20061064 and marked it off-topic.
Fair enough.
This guy? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/texas-indicts-co...
It's absolutely routine for basically anyone accused of sexual assault to find a whole bunch of men reporting that they seemed to be a standup guy. That doesn't mean they remain a standup guy when left alone around women.
It's absolutely routine for basically anyone accused of sexual assault to find a whole bunch of men reporting that they seemed to be a standup guy. That doesn't mean they remain a standup guy when left alone around women.
He met the girl via a website that claimed to be age-verified. Turns out she lied about her age, and the site didn't actually (properly) verify her. He still should've verified her age himself, but it kinda changes the narrative.
Well that's quite a lie you've made here. He didn't sexually assault anybody, it was consensual with a minor.
Consensual sex with a minor isn't by definition. I mean, even the _charges_ say 'sexual assault', so this is not something the GP is inventing out of thin air.
The fact that different countries have different cutoff ages for statutory rape (the girl was 16, whereas some countries set the limit to be as low as 15, in particular most of Europe is 16 or below) makes this much less of a clear cut than your comment implies.
It really isn't a lie. The state of Texas considers a 30 year old man fucking around with a "girl younger than 17 years" to be sexual assault. He has been charged with 4 counts of sexual assault.
Why can't they just be a standup guy that has issues dealing with women in specific circumstances? Why are they defined by that specific case and not their holistic behavior?
Judging someone for their holistic behavior doesn't mean ignoring their sexual assault. What are you even asking?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[flagged]
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> That doesn't mean they remain a standup guy when left alone around women.
Agreed, of course. I'm just speaking of my own experience.
Agreed, of course. I'm just speaking of my own experience.
The girl was 16, which means what he did is perfectly legal in most of Europe.
[deleted]
The guy ran and seeked asylum because he feared he will 'be made an example of' by USA. He sat in that tiny room for 6 years while US actors were working hard to smear him as a rapist and Russian puppet, while insinuating that everyone who claims USA is targeting Assange, or that there are indictments just waiting for his arrest is a conspiracy theorist.
The moment he was removed from the embassy protection (again, as result of extreme pressure by USA onto Ecuador), the indictment for a death-sentence charge becomes public, and his personal belongings are illegally given by Ecuador to USA.
In my opinion, Assange was proven right.
The moment he was removed from the embassy protection (again, as result of extreme pressure by USA onto Ecuador), the indictment for a death-sentence charge becomes public, and his personal belongings are illegally given by Ecuador to USA.
In my opinion, Assange was proven right.
The Russian puppet claims only started after Wikileaks started acting like a Russian puppet.
How's that? Leaking info about corruption in a political party doesn't make them Russian puppets just because you happen to be a member of that party.
No, but knowingly releasing documents that were partially or entirely forged by the Russian intelligence agencies does make one a Russian puppet.
Which is exactly what Wikileaks did, openly, at Assange's direction...despite the misgivings of the rest of the staff that the releases were timed for political effect on the US campaign on not out of some desire for the truth.
Which is exactly what Wikileaks did, openly, at Assange's direction...despite the misgivings of the rest of the staff that the releases were timed for political effect on the US campaign on not out of some desire for the truth.
This is the first I've heard that the DNC/Podesta emails were forged, do you have a source for that?
And personally, assuming the emails are legit, I would rather they release that info before the election when it actually matters instead of afterwards. If a candidate is engaging in collusion/corruption to rig the primary against a competitor (Sanders) and receiving debate questions prior to a debate that's something I'd want voters to know about.
And personally, assuming the emails are legit, I would rather they release that info before the election when it actually matters instead of afterwards. If a candidate is engaging in collusion/corruption to rig the primary against a competitor (Sanders) and receiving debate questions prior to a debate that's something I'd want voters to know about.
This is in regards to emails leaked from a journalist David Satter by Fancy Bear, the article doesn't say those were published by Wikileaks and I couldn't confirm elsewhere that they were. The article does mention:
>The Clinton campaign warned about the files pilfered from Podesta and published on Wikileaks, though it never offered any proof.
While the Podesta emails are believed by US intelligence to have been hacked by Fancy Bear as well, the wikipedia page on the Podesta hack says this:
>Cybersecurity experts interviewed by PolitiFact believe the majority of emails are probably unaltered, while stating it is possible that the hackers inserted at least some doctored or fabricated emails. The article then attests that the Clinton campaign, however, has yet to produce any evidence that any specific emails in the latest leak were fraudulent.[4] A subsequent investigation by U.S. intelligence agencies also reported that the files obtained by WikiLeaks during the U.S. election contained no "evident forgeries".[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails
In regards to the DNC server leaks, there is no convincing evidence the Russians were involved and I do not trust the conclusions of an analysis done by a third-party cyber security company contracted by the DNC (Crowdstrike)
>The Clinton campaign warned about the files pilfered from Podesta and published on Wikileaks, though it never offered any proof.
While the Podesta emails are believed by US intelligence to have been hacked by Fancy Bear as well, the wikipedia page on the Podesta hack says this:
>Cybersecurity experts interviewed by PolitiFact believe the majority of emails are probably unaltered, while stating it is possible that the hackers inserted at least some doctored or fabricated emails. The article then attests that the Clinton campaign, however, has yet to produce any evidence that any specific emails in the latest leak were fraudulent.[4] A subsequent investigation by U.S. intelligence agencies also reported that the files obtained by WikiLeaks during the U.S. election contained no "evident forgeries".[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails
In regards to the DNC server leaks, there is no convincing evidence the Russians were involved and I do not trust the conclusions of an analysis done by a third-party cyber security company contracted by the DNC (Crowdstrike)
> releasing documents that were partially or entirely forged by the Russian intelligence agencies does make one a Russian puppet
The few emails that I checked had a valid dkim signature.
The few emails that I checked had a valid dkim signature.
Technically, if you hack a mail server, you'll get access to DKIM private keys. I would only trust these mails DKIM signature if I personally received them prior to the breach.
Otherwise it's a very weak proof.
Otherwise it's a very weak proof.
Clinton's people would've come out and said if any of the emails were forged. They didn't.
That'd be just a damage control decision. It's not a verifiable claim for outside observers just from the DKIM keys.
Doing the Russians' bidding by enabling their interference in the US presidential election and openly stating his preference as to the result destroyed any possible credibility as a "journalist" and made him look very much like a Russian puppet.
He dug his own grave.
He dug his own grave.
>Doing the Russians' bidding by enabling their interference in the US presidential election
How specifically did he do this? Publishing 'Collateral Murder' embarrassed a lot of people in Washington and probably affected elections afterwards, yet I never heard anyone make these accusations back then. And this hysteria about Russia over 40k worth of Facebook ads and some twitter bots is outrageous, Facebook/Twitters policy of censoring conservatives likely has a much more significant effect on elections than those ads and bots ever could.
>openly stating his preference as to the result destroyed any possible credibility as a "journalist" and made him look very much like a Russian puppet.
The entirety of the corporate media openly stated their preference during the election as well, to put it lightly.
How specifically did he do this? Publishing 'Collateral Murder' embarrassed a lot of people in Washington and probably affected elections afterwards, yet I never heard anyone make these accusations back then. And this hysteria about Russia over 40k worth of Facebook ads and some twitter bots is outrageous, Facebook/Twitters policy of censoring conservatives likely has a much more significant effect on elections than those ads and bots ever could.
>openly stating his preference as to the result destroyed any possible credibility as a "journalist" and made him look very much like a Russian puppet.
The entirety of the corporate media openly stated their preference during the election as well, to put it lightly.
He interfered by telling a truth that politicians would rather have remained unknown. He embarrassed the Clinton campaign
Releasing emails from the DNC is one thing, but releasing them with timing especially to have maximum political impact against one candidate is another thing entirely.
Timing the release of relevant information for maximum impact is exactly what any self-respecting media organisation should do.
Your statement only makes sense if Wikileaks had similar information regarding the Trump (edit: or other conservative) campaign and refused to release it.
Your statement only makes sense if Wikileaks had similar information regarding the Trump (edit: or other conservative) campaign and refused to release it.
You conveniently ignore the "political impact against one candidate" bit.
So your statement only makes sense if you assume that all journalists are trying to influence politics to the benefit of their preferred candidate in their reporting.
So your statement only makes sense if you assume that all journalists are trying to influence politics to the benefit of their preferred candidate in their reporting.
My point is, unless he also had info on Trump/Republicans, he couldn’t have impacted their campaign. So impact of just one candidate/party was inevitable. Then, optimise for max impact.
Wouldn't it have been dishonest to let people vote before they knew the DNC unfairly treated candidates that polled better against Trump like Sanders despite claiming to be neutral when taking people's money?
Releasing after the fact would have been dishonest and less helpful to either party. It also would have been dishonest to people who donated.
Yes, the DNC chairman resigned and was immediately given the golden parachute of being hired by the Clinton campaign, but the DNC could have made things right instead of that joke resignation. It's not Wikileak's fault the DNC is corrupt and stayed corrupt instead of doing the right thing, and they did the right thing by giving them a chance.
Releasing after the fact would have been dishonest and less helpful to either party. It also would have been dishonest to people who donated.
Yes, the DNC chairman resigned and was immediately given the golden parachute of being hired by the Clinton campaign, but the DNC could have made things right instead of that joke resignation. It's not Wikileak's fault the DNC is corrupt and stayed corrupt instead of doing the right thing, and they did the right thing by giving them a chance.
[deleted]
Is there verifiable intelligence to support this? I recall the Roger Stone story which didn't look like it had much depth to me. And I know Assange had a show on RT for a while. But has any evidence surfaced of an actual conspiracy involving Wikileaks and the Russians?
I did notice a big uptick in what I thought was right wing, pro-Trump statements on their twitter feed, and especially on Assange's twitter feed, shortly after Trump was elected. However, I assumed that was part of some strategy to win favour with Trump (perhaps hoping that Wikileaks would become popular with the new administration since Trump had been so pro-Wikileaks during his campaign speeches).
I did notice a big uptick in what I thought was right wing, pro-Trump statements on their twitter feed, and especially on Assange's twitter feed, shortly after Trump was elected. However, I assumed that was part of some strategy to win favour with Trump (perhaps hoping that Wikileaks would become popular with the new administration since Trump had been so pro-Wikileaks during his campaign speeches).
His show on RT was actually really good. It's worth your while to give the interviews he conducted a look. People often attack him for his show being aired on RT, but I get the impression most of them haven't watched it.
In his interview with Nasrallah, he presses Nasrallah about Hezbollah's support for the Syrian government. It's clear that Assange is critical of Hezbollah's involvement in Syria, which undermines the idea that Assange is a Russian puppet. He also asks Nasrallah about whether God is a tyrant, which elicits an interesting response.
In his interview with Nasrallah, he presses Nasrallah about Hezbollah's support for the Syrian government. It's clear that Assange is critical of Hezbollah's involvement in Syria, which undermines the idea that Assange is a Russian puppet. He also asks Nasrallah about whether God is a tyrant, which elicits an interesting response.
> especially on Assange's twitter feed, shortly after Trump was elected.
which was just a couple months after Assange stopped signing anything with his PGP key.
which was just a couple months after Assange stopped signing anything with his PGP key.
Interesting observation. I didn't know Assange signed his tweets with a PGP key. What I find odd though is that he hadn't got a message out of the embassy through supporters such as Pamela Anderson that his twitter feed was compromised.
The Russian puppet claims only started after Hillary lost to Trump, and they had no recourse but to push forward with the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, which was originally prepared to punish Trump after he loses.
Since he won, the holes in narrative were not covered up well, and it has fallen/is falling apart.
Since he won, the holes in narrative were not covered up well, and it has fallen/is falling apart.
Now you have developed your own conspiracy to prove how wrong other people’s conspiracy was. Do you see the irony?
Why did Assange defend Putin after the Panama Papers? I thought he loved transparency. When did Assange start his RT show, funded by the Russian state?
Why did Assange defend Putin after the Panama Papers? I thought he loved transparency. When did Assange start his RT show, funded by the Russian state?
Assange has not been charged with any violation which carries the possibility of the death sentence.
I think people are only claiming they potentially do. It is unlikely the DOJ would seek the death penalty for the particular violations, especially since he would not be extradited if they did. What happens after he sets foot on US soil though is unclear (as in, I don't know what the law says about adding charges after the extradition).
It doesn't matter what people claim that the charges may "potentially" carry the death penalty because that would violate reality. The death penalty would exceed the maximum authorized statutory punishment for the charges laid against Assange.
Moreover, while it would not violate both international law, various treaties, and the US Constitution protections on due process to charge Assange with crimes that could theoretically carry the death penalty after his extradition, any attempt to actually impose such a penalty were he found guilty of any such crime would violate all of the above, ensuring that he could not be executed for his crimes in America. At worst, he could face life in a maximum security facility.
Moreover, while it would not violate both international law, various treaties, and the US Constitution protections on due process to charge Assange with crimes that could theoretically carry the death penalty after his extradition, any attempt to actually impose such a penalty were he found guilty of any such crime would violate all of the above, ensuring that he could not be executed for his crimes in America. At worst, he could face life in a maximum security facility.
I am not convinced by any of this. His lawyers have argued repeatedly that he should not be extradited because he would face the death penalty, torture or mistreatment. Ecuador sought written assurances from the UK that he would not be extradited to any country where he would face the death penalty, including the US. The UK has stated it will not extradite him to any country where he faces the death penalty. But this is based on what he has currently been charged with, not what he may be charged with under the espionage act (core political charges).
Whilst I am sure you are correct that the specific charges against him in the superceding indictment do not carry the death penalty, other charges could.
I'm ignorant enough to not see why you believe it would be a violation of international law, treaties and the US Consitution to execute him. The US executes people and subjects them to solitary confinement and even punitive measures that lead to death of inmates all the time (take the recent example of someone who the jailers denied water for seven days until he died).
You don't have to look further than the treatment of then Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning to see that Assange has a very real basis for believing that he would not have his rights respected (which in his case, as far as I can see, could very well include application of the death penalty).
Just to clarify what I originally replied. I'm saying that the very willingness of the US to charge Assange under the espionage act shows their willingness to apply a law that could potentially be used to seek capital punishment. That is what people are complaining about, not that he has actually at this time been charged with a specific violation that would result in the death penalty.
Whilst I am sure you are correct that the specific charges against him in the superceding indictment do not carry the death penalty, other charges could.
I'm ignorant enough to not see why you believe it would be a violation of international law, treaties and the US Consitution to execute him. The US executes people and subjects them to solitary confinement and even punitive measures that lead to death of inmates all the time (take the recent example of someone who the jailers denied water for seven days until he died).
You don't have to look further than the treatment of then Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning to see that Assange has a very real basis for believing that he would not have his rights respected (which in his case, as far as I can see, could very well include application of the death penalty).
Just to clarify what I originally replied. I'm saying that the very willingness of the US to charge Assange under the espionage act shows their willingness to apply a law that could potentially be used to seek capital punishment. That is what people are complaining about, not that he has actually at this time been charged with a specific violation that would result in the death penalty.
Even Nostradamus could correctly predict the fallout from his own actions. Saying "the US will come after me" isn't a revelation when you do things the US government doesn't like. The question is whether they are justified in doing so.
If the USA does in fact seek to make an example of him, it's important to answer whether Assange should stand trial for the crimes the USA alleges he has committed.
I think the answer to that question is yes. Assange should stand trial and, more importantly, the verdict rendered should be fair and just.
The verdict will have implications for journalism and the First Amendment, and insofar as Assange has acted under the auspices of free speech and journalistic integrity, I believe he should be found not guilty.
Insofar as he has acted as an enemy of the United States and outside the jurisdictional domain of journalism, such a verdict may be more difficult to justify.
I think the answer to that question is yes. Assange should stand trial and, more importantly, the verdict rendered should be fair and just.
The verdict will have implications for journalism and the First Amendment, and insofar as Assange has acted under the auspices of free speech and journalistic integrity, I believe he should be found not guilty.
Insofar as he has acted as an enemy of the United States and outside the jurisdictional domain of journalism, such a verdict may be more difficult to justify.
[deleted]
Seems to me, that staying in an Ecuadoran embassy for 6 years and seeing where he still ended up, already shows him having been made an example of.
dmayle(7)
The US gov got him where they wanted him, but let's hope Assange breaks this cycle of the U.S. gov arresting and accusing whistleblowers of espionage by not taking any plea deal or pleading guilty. He needs to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.
Calling him a whistleblower may have fit early on in his 'career', but by the end he was a huckster and an agent, knowing or unknowing, in state level espionage.
I absolutely think the case should go to the Supreme Court, if only to clarify the culpability journalists and news agencies have when they publish illegally obtained information.
I absolutely think the case should go to the Supreme Court, if only to clarify the culpability journalists and news agencies have when they publish illegally obtained information.
part of the snowden leaks was a document where the gov recognized JA as an increasing threat, and laid out plans to character assasinate him and other psyops things, and most of the bullshit being spewed about him is easily identifiable as feddback loops on that operation which continues today
Apparently at first he assumed Assange was just a good actor, but after visiting him it had become clear to him and the medical experts with him that this is a case of treatment amounting to psychological torture, the likes of which (psychological, not physical) he has not seen in 20 years.
He's been giving numerous interviews about the matter and says that extradition to the US should be ruled out at all costs and that he has very real fears for Assange's health and for the probable violation of his human rights.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/julian-assange-showing-sy...