The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange • Hacker News Board

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#541

Post by scoot_718 » Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 10:26 PM UTC

guitarbill wrote: post #489

codedokode wrote: post #420

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…

There are more egregious cases. Kim Dotcom has never been to the US, yet is somehow facing extradition to the US. None of these cases are about justice, it's more like bullying.

He's a massive fraud who does business in the US.

Why don't you make a similar defense of El Chapo?

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#542

Post by resters » Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 10:35 PM UTC

yesenadam wrote: post #479

resters wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supporting Assange or expressing skepticism about the Russia narrative on HN is a good way to get shadow banned, but it depends a lot in which mod gets involved.

What evidence do you have for that?

try it yourself with a throwaway account.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#543

Post by yesenadam » Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 10:49 PM UTC

resters wrote: post #542

yesenadam wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence do you have for that?

try it yourself with a throwaway account.

Ah ok. Well, I'm sure I won't be bothered doing that. (And to write fake comments I don't believe in doesn't seem....ethical somehow.) Also, I suspect your "Supporting Assange" and "expressing skepticism about the Russia narrative" are massive euphemisms. Maybe you could give links to the comments you're referring to?

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#544

Post by culot » Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 11:33 PM UTC

calibas wrote: post #448

armenarmen wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans (and I sadly speak for all 300mm+ of us) no longer give a flying fuck about illegal wars or mass murder. There is no peace movement, there won’t be ever again. Citizens will ignore the wars and entertain them selves by rage posting about either the red or blue team

People don't want wars, but they feel powerless to change things. And these feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness are perpetuated among society and create a self-defeating attitude.

Unless you plop them into a warzone, they won't truly care. In the US we are generally so far removed from the fracas of war.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#545

Post by cwkoss » Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 11:50 PM UTC

kristjansson wrote: post #536

cwkoss wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how publishing primary source documents, even selectively, can be called distortion of truth. The cablegate dump had many interesting revelations https://theweek.com/articles/488953/wikileaks-cablegate-dump... Some may believe it is in the public interest to hide US aggression to protect ourselves from repercussions. I think it is necessary to expose US aggression to public light to minimize its us…

Selectively publishing primary source documents definitely _can_ be a distortion of truth. To take the most salient example: It seems reasonable that the internal sausage-making most political parties is similar - there are power dynamics, personal (and possibly institutional) preferences, etc. If WL were to receive leaks internal communication from two opposing parties, and only publish one while allowing the opposi…

If both parties are withholding the truth from the public, revealing accurate documents is removing the distortion of truth (at least for one party).

If WL had information about another party and chose not to release, it's not a distortion: the distortion already existed. But it would arguably be unethical to not act to end the distortion, if WL was capable of doing so.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#546

Post by surfingtheweb » Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 11:59 PM UTC

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-cyberwar-commentar...

"...Vice President Joe Biden said on NBC’s Meet the Press that “we’re sending a message” to Putin and “it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact.” When asked if the American public would know a message was sent, Biden replied, “Hope not.”

This statement has haunted me since I first watched Biden's interview in 2016. What are Biden's plans to avenge Clinton's lost campaign? I've always thought it has something to do with Assange, but aside from discretely murdering Assange, I can't think of anything the US could do to avenge Hilary's loss that the public wouldn't know about. Clinton asked why we couldn't just drone Assange. Maybe they'll make his death look like an accident or a health issue?

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#547

Post by culot » Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 12:10 AM UTC

tootie wrote: post #283

jMyles wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not me. I still think that his efforts have cast very important light on the recent history of US Foreign Policy.

Assange is simply not an honest broker which is his one job. Even if you think the Chelsea Manning leak was valuable, what exactly was Assange's value add? The leaker was not protected. She was caught and prosecuted. The data was not protected. WikiLeaks was hacked and leaked all the raw data. The content was not shared in an objective way. Assange editorialized the content with his own opinions (ie Collateral Murder…

Wasn't Manning caught by bragging about leaking? It wasn't Wikileaks' fault that Manning chose to discard any potential anonymity by being recklessly boastful.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#548

Post by iamnothere » Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 2:04 AM UTC

resters wrote: post #532

bestnameever wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide an example?

There are many. I should really document my findings in some sort of analysis. I've pointed this out to some friends who have payed closer attention and now agree with me after observing it for the last year or so themselves and comparing articles on the same topic between the WaPo and other sources. I personally am strongly anti-Trump but also broadly dislike both major parties, so citing a WaPo article that is unfa…

Objective journalism died with the subscription-based business model. Instead of optimizing for long-term reader trust, media has to get maximum eyeballs.

This has always been a problem (TV news was making the shift long before print media) but it's only gotten worse. It became impossible to ignore in 2016, but it was building before that.

I hear that the WSJ is still fairly reliable (if you ignore the opinion columns), and FT as well. But I can't confirm, because I'm part of the problem and I don't pay for news either.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#549

Post by Nasrudith » Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 4:05 AM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #461

wallace_f wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the Iraq Warlogs, or DWS scandal. Even leaks like the Stratfor files are certainly in the best interests of the "little guy," if anyone actually gives a shit about them. But if "all a man is, is what others say of him," then by watching the news, Assange is just a Russian agent.

yeah, I don't really understand how someone dedicated to upsetting the authorities got painted as a tool of right-wing US politics. Or maybe my left-leaning echo chamber is portraying him as that, and the alt-right bubble sees him as a Russian agent? It'd be interesting to compare notes... is there a service for matching up people in different bubbles so we can compare facts?

It is a legitimately confusing bit of partisan allegiance shifting in my estimate. Because Hillary lost and Trump has been acting like an incredibly obvious puppet even by his standards of 'gets along fine with despots while hating and being hated by every other democratically elected ally'. Given the allegations of Hillary Clinton 'joking' about drone striking him assuming a grudge is reasonable.

Really I have the feeling that they have gotten played like a goddamn fiddle by the intelligence agencies - after they faced the right turning against them for believing what their lying eyes were telling them about Trump's blatant Putin connections. So they are trying to save their behind after they were the brunt of rightful left-wing grudges over things like the Iraq intelligence, spying on activists, and spying on everyone pissing off the general public that doesn't drink the red white and blue "we need to destroy our freedoms to save them" koolaid.

I'm personally of a liberal of a 'free market but intervene when it works better and highly value civil rights' view who believes that the sheer dark history of the intelligence agencies makes the moderate option be to purge every last organization and make sure they never work in anything peripherally related again.

Strip away all labels and contexts and you would probably agree that an agency of torturers who trains dictators, overthrows democracies for short term petty economic interests at great suffering, invented depravities like 'rape dogs', and 'rectal feeding', practices torture despite knowing it doesn't work and more means that they deserve far worse.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#550

Post by Nasrudith » Sat, Nov 17, 2018, 4:14 AM UTC

codedokode wrote: post #447

pcwalton wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. The Washington Post remains one of the best publications in the US. I certainly trust it more than Russian propaganda outlets such as Wikileaks.

It is interesting that in Russia people who criticise Putin and expose corruption are often called American agents who are paid by US Department of State (Department of State is an incarnation of evil for propaganda) to weaken our country.

That is the stock lie for everybody - and it is a lie even when it is the truth ironically enough - a logical fallacy to be more precise.

The KGB was trying to sponsor the Civil Rights movement to weaken the US. What I mean by it being a lie even when it is true is that the statement implies that the movement is fabricated or unworthy by their support. It is a distraction.

In reality the merit of groups exist completely independent of who sponsors it and even giving money is no guarantee of control. Even if the KGB gave millions to Martin Luther King that wouldn't make fighting segregation the wrong thing to do suddenly any more than accepting Soviet funding of a smallpox vaccination means that eradicating smallpox is suddenly wrong.

It is especially bad since it is used to discredit /the movement/ itself as opposed to any actor being questionable. Martin Luther King cheating on his wife didn't make the civil rights movement wrong.