Live data from Hacker News

The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

wsj.com

421–430 of 577 posts

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#421
post #113
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you support it if the DNC had run a similar campaign supporting Clinton against Obama in 08?

The purpose of the DNC, as with the RNC, is to choose a candidate they feel is most likely to win. I don't believe choosing Obama over Clinton would have been any less political than choosing Clinton over Obama, or Clinton over Bernie. I don't believe that political calculus or meddling or special privileges granted to high-ranking party officials is actually atypical for either party. Of course, Wikileaks never rele…

And before they choose, they're supposed to determine who is more likely to win. And they admitted they didn't do that fairly as they were being run by Clinton campaign.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#422

As I understand, Assange is not an US citizen. How can they prosecute him? Wikipedia page [1] says: > Opinions of Assange at this time [2010] were divided. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard described his activities as "illegal," but the police said that he had broken no Australian law. United States Vice President Joe Biden and others called him a "terrorist". Some called for his assassination or execution. Tha…

Citizenship isn't usually relevant to prosecution, unless it's for something like treason. The US prosecutes foreigners for hacking crimes committed outside of the country as well.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#423
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia airing the dirty laundry through a side channel is MUCH more benevolent than the other things (like blackmailing our world leaders) they could do with this. I don't think all of Wikileaks' revelations are from Russia, but even if they all are - and Russia had selfish motivations - it was a benevolent act toward the world. Truth is power, and revealing the truth to the powerless is never an evil act.

The question is whether WL has passively (or worse, actively) allowed its position as a conduit of information to be leveraged by malevolent actors to shape (or distort) the truth? Obviously leaks that reveal actual wrongdoing are an unalloyed good. When the leaks that merely provide voyeuristic windows into the routine business of institutions (e.g. the diplomatic cables), the social value of the visibility becomes…

If by American and Western interests, you mean the values western society is built on, the answer should be pretty simple: national security is no excuse for secret courts, secret prosecutions and secret rulings. It's also to be expected that this society is going to provide more opportunities for leaks in the first place, as opposed to more totalitarian societies. Not that there isn't sufficient grounds for arguing that distinction has already blurred for the most relevant purposes.

It's also to be expected that WL's every move is scrutinized. But anti-WL action went much, much further, including a complete financial boycott from above. That was years before any allegations of Russian meddling ever entered the picture. The US has openly targeted them for years, but if they hold any grudge about this in return in the form of not pulling punches and maximizing publication impact, it is supposed to reflect badly on them? That seems more than a little unbalanced.

The skepticism only goes one way. WL has a perfect track record in accuracy. Their own story however is regularly misrepresented and misstated. Plus, never forget that it was a Guardian journalist who was dumb enough to leak the crucial password to the full diplomatic archive, in the same book where they admitted to being too dumb to Google how to open a 7zip file. Such their missteps from the traditional press are casually excused in a game of closing ranks that reminds one more of cops than renegades. So much for the enlightened and free press: they needed a bunch of crypto nerds to show them how it is done, after the tech industry stole their collective lunches, and they handed over control of their platforms and income to hordes of shady surveillance capitalists.

The traditional press' warmongering and American mythologizing is also a naked fact. So much that they even held off on the Trump bashing for a while, when he was banging that drum, calling it "presidential".

So who is really using power over whom? Who is using truth for whuch cause, and who is publishing self serving fluff pieces instead? Why should we worry about WL, when the American fish is clearly rotting from the head down, and those who are supposed to stop that are incapable of doing so?

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you be surprised by ineptitude, or willingness to conspire, here, anyways? You should read about the Gulf of Tonkin, Iran Contra, watch the documentary 1971(1), McCarthyism, the FBI's dealings with MLK, or read about Gary Webb. It's not surprising. The FBI apparently sent agents to other countries trying to frame Assange. Iceland told them to fuck off: www.katoikos.eu/interview/icelandic-minister-who-refuse…

You would be doing me a grave injustice to think I am an apologist for the US government, in either colored administration (blue or red), to think that I am blind to their misdeeds, such as the "original" 9/11, the day Pinochet was installed. And well, as someone who grew up in Australia, that article is full of nothings: - while 'rape' is used repeatedly, no-one, including either the woman involved, nor the prosecut…

No, you're just misinformed, ignorant, or being disingenuous. There is a large community whom claim this, and I even linked you to the PM of Iceland claiming that he has been conspired agaist. His story is very much contested and debated. Many claim one of the rape victims in fact claimed to have been coerced and subsequently recanted(1).

1-https://medium.com/@helen.buyniski/free-julian-assange-or-yo...

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#425
post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems a non-sequitur. Which part of that article seems to be political propaganda? It seems to be a decently piece of reporting on justice department thinking at the time?

There is rarely outright falsehood, but lots of misdirection and omission, and a ton of fluffy echo chamber pieces. There are some good articles but I personally would not rely upon the paper's content as accurate unless all of the facts and assertions were independently verified elsewhere.

Can you provide an example?

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've apparently forgotten all about that whole Osama Bin Laden thing. You know, the person who Clinton sent a team to kill even though he was never charged with any crime. There's even a video of Clinton watching his illegal assassination.

Bin Laden was indicted in 1998 for multiple capital crimes. His co-conspirators were convicted. The Taliban refused to extradite bin Laden and the UN Security Council responded with sanctions (e.g. Security Council resolution 1267).

There was no compulsion to comply since the charges were filed ( under seal ) in New York state and there was no extradition agreement with Afghanistan.

Despite that the Taliban had been in negotiation since 1998 and repeatedly offered to hand Bin Laden over to a third country.

SCR1267 did not authorise military action.

Everything you have written is true, yet misleading.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#427
post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with posting "proof" here is that it's always unclear where to start. Do you accept that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian agent? If not, then it's going to be a long post. If you do, then Guccifer 2.0 himself claimed he gave the leaks to Wikileaks[1]. Wikileaks tweeted the same information[2]. Which part is in question here exactly? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0#cite_note-:5-7 [2] https://twitt…

The entire Guccifer narrative is the most speculative and least substantiated aspect of the entire drama. That doesn't mean it's false, however. But one might wonder why anyone cares about it or gives it any consideration, when there are so many far stronger data points. The Guccifer narrative supports (weakly) the idea of a link between Russia and the emails. So in order for this to matter you have to believe that R…

[deleted]

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#428
post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll give you some absurd and ridiculous details. When the WL backend for collateral murder was hosted at bahnhof in Sweden, moving it to .CH was among other reasons done because of certainly the US, and specifically & allegedly homeland security having launched a DDOS attack so strong it could have kicked Sweden offline. When US agents started their smearing campaign against Assange in Sweden, they accidentally adde…

> When US agents started their smearing campaign against Assange in Sweden, they accidentally added smear to wikipedia that did not happen yet. Citation?

I can't quote it but i can tell you my two independant sources namely Birgitta Jonsdottir ( former Icelandic MP, and one of the people who noticed it ) and Amelia Andersdotter ( former Swedish member of the european parliament, and my ex partner ). Both are highly accessible so you can get your first hand confirmation yourself.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#429
post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Russia used him as a deniable way to launder secrets they had stolen into the American press. I have never seen proof of this accusation? Can you link me to it? Not the accusation, but proof? What is it: was he "used" like you said, or mislead, or intentionally aiding Russia? To be fair the DWS scandal is a real problem, a big deal, and a threat to our democracy... and nobody was seriously punished for that. DWS is…

The problem with posting "proof" here is that it's always unclear where to start. Do you accept that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian agent? If not, then it's going to be a long post. If you do, then Guccifer 2.0 himself claimed he gave the leaks to Wikileaks[1]. Wikileaks tweeted the same information[2]. Which part is in question here exactly? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0#cite_note-:5-7 [2] https://twitt…

(To preempt: I'm not complaining, I have lots of imaginary HN points)

The voting on this is amazing. It's gone from +3 to -2 to 0 and back up and down a few times in just a couple of hours.

It'd be really, really interesting to see the patterns of what else voters are voting for.

I don't think this comment is particularly controversial (it's a direct response, doesn't attempt to interprete the evidence, made it clear the evdidence depends on your starting point etc etc). Notably the only reply at this point at least partially agrees with this post (I think?)

I guess being part of a controversial topic leads to spill-over in voting. I suspect it's particularly pronounced in this case, because Assange's actions have made him vilified by different sides of politics at different times, and so there is always something to hate on?

I find it really fascinating, and I'd love to be able to dig into the data to see what exactly is going on.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#430

As I understand, Assange is not an US citizen. How can they prosecute him? Wikipedia page [1] says: > Opinions of Assange at this time [2010] were divided. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard described his activities as "illegal," but the police said that he had broken no Australian law. United States Vice President Joe Biden and others called him a "terrorist". Some called for his assassination or execution. Tha…

Citizenship isn't usually relevant to prosecution, unless it's for something like treason. The US prosecutes foreigners for hacking crimes committed outside of the country as well.

This is bad. Because other countries might take the same approach. What if China, Iran or Russia will start prosecuting US citizens for posts on the Internet that are against their laws? Like critisizing Communist Party? I don't see the difference between US prosecuting Assange and China prosecuting those who, being infinitely malignant, publish illegal, misleading information about Communist Party or Tiananmen square events thus bringing the authority and good name of the Government into contempt.
Post reply on HN