Everyone defending Assange need to watch the second episode of Web of Make Believe on Netflix. Fuck Assange.
It's so weird watching people go to bat for this pos in this thread, good grief. He's not a journalist so that concern reads so damn hollow.
Someone should tell this to, ahem, the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...assanges-extradition-a-bad-day-for-journalism
The guy already deserves a prison sentence for rape, so I really don't care if he ends up in prison for something else.
It's basically a "convicting Al Capone for tax evasion" sort of deal to me. Sure, it's not exactly the kind of justice he should be facing, but at least there's at least some karmic retribution going on.
Oh I couldn't agree more. I was talking about his defenders.Sure if you're comfortable separating the sad excuse of a man from his actions. Some of us are finding it rather hard to just ignore the things he's done. Whether he is being extradited for rape or not doesn't mean others are going to struggle to care because he is a rapist. Same applies for his outing of gay men in a country they'd be targeted in. He made his bed and landed in a different one, doesn't mean anyone has to fight for him or feel any sense of shame for not coming to his defense
What government hasn't used dubious "reasons" to murder civilians?you think that's crazy? Look at the US government, it thinks declaring war on terrorism gives it the right to murder civilians and face no consequences
He isn't getting arrested for whistleblowing. He's getting arrested for everything he leaked outside of the whistleblowing. But I guess, some are okay with leaking things indiscriminately in a way that leaks peoples location, outs gay people, and a host of other things. He also did it as part of being an agent of Putin.This guy is going to be tortured in some fashion if he is sent to the US. The fact some of you guys are okay with that is fucking weird.
Plus the precedents this sets will have a negative effect in the journalism world. He shouldn't be dragged away to a US jail for exposing war crimes that the US committed no matter how much you hate the guy.
It's so weird watching people go to bat for this pos in this thread, good grief. He's not a journalist so that concern reads so damn hollow.
"Leftists"Just more leftists showing their assholes like they have been since the beginning of the year.
There's a reason why Socialist-ERA is a fucking graveyard.
"Leftists"
The horseshoe theory has never felt more real, honestly.
Someone should tell this to, ahem, the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...assanges-extradition-a-bad-day-for-journalism
But I'm sure they didn't check with ERA first
Just more leftists showing their assholes like they have been since the beginning of the year.
There's a reason why Socialist-ERA is a fucking graveyard.
"Leftists"
The horseshoe theory has never felt more real, honestly.
Fucking seriously. The last several months have really opened my eyes as to how much certain online leftists view things as a team sport just as much as the alt-right.
Lol you didn't read it did you?Oh are we sharing opinion columns?, I can share several saying he is not a journalist.
Lol you didn't read it did you?
It's the editorial, not a rando column.
Christ
I hope Assange rots for a long time. Same for the rest of Russia's pawns/bought men.He's a blatant Russian asset. Fuck him for helping Trump get elected. No sympathy whatsoever.
Written by "Editorial", which represents the view of the Guardian.
In what world is the Editorial section not opinion? It's the opinions of the Editorial staff (unless it's listed as Op-Ed(Opposing Editorial)), but it's still opinionWritten by "Editorial", which represents the view of the Guardian.
Written by "Editorial", which represents the view of the Guardian.
An opinion that represents the view of the newspaper.In what world is the Editorial section not opinion? It's the opinions of the Editorial staff (unless it's listed as Op-Ed(Opposing Editorial)), but it's still opinion
Ok.
I highly doubt Assange was ever a real journalist, that actually requires integrity and being willing to make your benefactors look bad instead of shielding them or kissing their ass.This guy is going to be tortured in some fashion if he is sent to the US. The fact some of you guys are okay with that is fucking weird.
Plus the precedents this sets will have a negative effect in the journalism world. He shouldn't be dragged away to a US jail for exposing war crimes that the US committed no matter how much you hate the guy.
Whataboutism is such a cowardly defence, the crimes Assange exposed are still unpunished.
It's so weird watching people go to bat for this pos in this thread, good grief. He's not a journalist so that concern reads so damn hollow.
Everyone defending Assange need to watch the second episode of Web of Make Believe on Netflix. Fuck Assange.
Exactly this.This man is not a hero and shame on anyone trying to argue so.
He's a Russian propagandist who just happened to get kernals of truth out from OTHER people. Fuck him.
Assange is a hired gun.This man is not a hero and shame on anyone trying to argue so.
He's a Russian propagandist who just happened to get kernals of truth out from OTHER people. Fuck him.
I don't see anyone saying this.This man is not a hero and shame on anyone trying to argue so.
More of a general statement than directed at anyone here.
Fair enough. But it reads as a strawman in the context of this thread.More of a general statement than directed at anyone here.
They certainly have in the past.
He's on trial for indiscriminately leaking. He leaked a whole lot more than just what he blew the whistle on. It doesn't set a precedent that hasn't already been set. You don't get whistleblower status for everything just cause some leaks could be protected. It would be a dangerous precedent if not chosen to prosecute. It'd allow bad actors to leak targeted information to put their enemies in danger then release any negative information they have and claim whistleblowerJulian Assange is terrible, but he's not on trial for any of the things this board rightfully hates him for, and the implications of his case are too far-reaching for us to just accept it on the grounds that this individual deserves to be punished for unrelated reasons.
You are conflating "leaking" with "publishing." If you are an employee of the government or gain confidential information through some sort of security clearance, and then leak that information, then you are not protected in general. The "leaking" or "whistleblowing" was done by Chelsea Manning, and she was unsurprisingly prosecuted. Assange is not a government employee or even US citizen. Manning gave him confidential information, and Assange, having no obligations to the US government, published it. This is what he's being prosecuted for.He's on trial for indiscriminately leaking. He leaked a whole lot more than just what he blew the whistle on. It doesn't set a precedent that hasn't already been set. You don't get whistleblower status for everything just cause some leaks could be protected.
He didn't publish. He hosted files. That makes him an accessory to leaking. You are typically prosecuted for aiding and abetting. It's why actual journalists read through information and selectively publish information. In fact, file hosting sites have been prosecuted in the past for what's on their sites.You are conflating "leaking" with "publishing." If you are an employee of the government or gain confidential information through some sort of security clearance, and then leak that information, then you are not protected in general. The "leaking" or "whistleblowing" was done by Chelsea Manning, and she was unsurprisingly prosecuted. Assange is not a government employee or even US citizen. Manning gave him confidential information, and Assange, having no obligations to the US government, published it. This is what he's being prosecuted for.
I don't see the distinction between publishing and hosting files. Journalists selectively publish because they try to be responsible with information, but broadly speaking the government should not be able to decide what it means for a non-employee to be responsible with information, especially when it incriminates the government. And yes, there are things which it is illegal to publish / host, but I think information generally is not and should not be one of them.He didn't publish. He hosted files. That makes him an accessory to leaking. You are typically prosecuted for aiding and abetting. It's why actual journalists read through information and selectively publish information. In fact, file hosting sites have been prosecuted in the past for what's on their sites.
I mean think about where that logically leads. Information should always be revealed responsibly. Doing so could people at risk of being ostracized or worse murdered whether it be from blowing a cover or revealing details about peoples personal lives and make no mistake WikiLeaks has done both with the latter impacting the US government.but I think information generally is not and should not be one of them.
The government has a legitimate interest in protecting its secrets and policing how information is handled internally. And, of course, information should still be revealed responsible when it's been leaked, but again, at that point it is giving the government a huge amount of power to still have jurisdiction over how that information is handled by unaffiliated actors.I mean think about where that logically leads. Information should always be revealed responsibly. Doing so could people at risk of being ostracized or worse murdered whether it be from blowing a cover or revealing details about peoples personal lives and make no mistake WikiLeaks has done both with the latter impacting the US government.
Now, I am by no means a huge fan of either WaPo or NYT, but when a lot of reasonable people seem to view charging Assange as a sus, Trump-y idea I'm inclined to view the extradition going through as also sus.President Barack Obama's Justice Department had extensive internal debates about whether to charge Assange amid concerns the case might not hold up in court and would be viewed as an attack on journalism by an administration already taking heat for leak prosecutions.
But senior Trump administration officials seemed to make clear early on that they held a different view, dialing up the rhetoric on the anti-secrecy organization shortly after it made damaging disclosures about the CIA's cyberespionage tools.
I highly doubt Assange was ever a real journalist, that actually requires integrity and being willing to make your benefactors look bad instead of shielding them or kissing their ass.
In that regard, I'm fine with him being tried as a Russian asset since its probably the more accurate description of what his job and aims actually were.
Fucking seriously. The last several months have really opened my eyes as to how much certain online leftists view things as a team sport just as much as the alt-right.
The articles in the OP didn't really say much, so I read up on what he's actually being charged with to refresh my memory. If I'm understanding correctly, the main indictment is a violation of the 1917 Espionage Act over the Chelsea Manning leak, not the DNC hack that and subsequent terrible behavior that rightfully got him villified. Reading up on past news articles, it turns out that both NYT and WaPo vocally aargued against the indictment and that the Obama admin didn't even want to charge Assange in the first place.
Charging Assange reflects dramatic shift in US approach
The Julian Assange case represents a dramatic new approach to the founder of WikiLeaks by the U.S. government.apnews.com
Now, I am by no means a huge fan of either WaPo or NYT, but when a lot of reasonable people seem to view charging Assange as a sus, Trump-y idea I'm inclined to view the extradition going through as also sus.
The alternative seems to be that the Obama admin was too scared to do the right thing and go after him, unlike the more confident Trump admin. That doesn't feel very right to me, but I guess it is possible.
Random question: What is the history of extraditing non-citized to the US based on leaks? Is this something that we do on a regular basis to like, spies?