Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

emma.best

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 227 posts

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#171

Post by davvolun »

hannasanarion wrote: post #79
Varcht wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have not published critical information on Russia, Syria or Donald Trump [in fact, WikiLeaks has published hundreds of thousands of documents on Russia, millions on Syria, and thousands on Donald Trump, see https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/ , https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=russia%7Cputin%7Cmoscow#... , https://wikileaks.org/syria-files…

ooooOOOOOOooooOOOO is Julian going to sue me for defamation now? Allow me to amend: Wikileaks now publishes Russia and putin related material long after they aquire them and only after they are called out on it. They sat on the "spy files" for a full year, and only published them after their source went around telling other publications about them. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...

I did not interpret the parent comment to be arguing against you, rather, I thought it was supporting your case -- Wikileaks is fully aware of their hypocrisy and is trying to stifle internal (and external) discussion about it.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#172

Post by lawnchair_larry »

marpstar wrote: post #7
ucaetano wrote: post #4

It is sad to see how low WikiLeaks has fallen, and makes me think more and more that there has never been much of WL beyond Assange himself. It has reached comical levels of insanity, illusion of grandeur and narcissism.

WikiLeaks has almost certainly been compromised by global intelligence agencies and is operating as a front.

We can be quite certain that this is not the case.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#173

Post by lawnchair_larry »

smacktoward wrote: post #34
marpstar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WikiLeaks has almost certainly been compromised by global intelligence agencies and is operating as a front.

It's not clear to me that intelligence agencies would have ever needed to compromise WikiLeaks-the-organization. WikiLeaks' whole methodology was to publish, unedited and unredacted, any documents anyone handed them. Any intelligence agency that wanted a clean way to get some illicitly-obtained documents out into public view could therefore do so just by handing them to WikiLeaks, without needing to subvert the organ…

WikiLeaks' whole methodology was to publish, unedited and unredacted, any documents anyone handed them.

Based on this statement, you don’t seem to be familiar with WikiLeaks and didn’t read the linked article that specifically addresses this claim.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#174

Post by throwaway6356 »

phaus wrote: post #91
throwaway6356 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

isn't the role of every media organization to affect the outcome of elections, by revealing true facts to the public? democracy dies in the dark you know.

There's a difference between objectively revealing all relevant, true facts at your disposal and selectively releasing true facts that support your agenda or actively harm your opponent, at very specific times when its most advantageous for you to do it. There's also a difference between having legitimate complaints about the United States government and actively working with Russian Intelligence to destabilize weste…

> selectively releasing true facts that support your agenda or actively harm your opponent, at very specific times when its most advantageous for you to do it

anyone can claim this about any media report that is negative to them. bottom line is: don't do dirt if you don't want it brought to the light.

> actively working with Russian Intelligence to destabilize western civilization

if there was any actual evidence of this I am sure we would have seen it by now.

> If Wikileaks had their way I don't think you'd like the NWO that Putin and China would build for us

this is nothing but evidence free conspiracy theorizing.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#175

Post by nkurz »

bootlooped wrote: post #153

"It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever “breached his bail”, “jumped bail”, absconded, fled an arrest warrant, or that he has ever been charged with such at any time." I would love to hear their explanation for why they think this isn't true.

Since we're unlikely to get an official statement from Wikileaks here (although it's not impossible) perhaps we could go the other way. Maybe you could research whichever of these you think is most clearly false, and report the evidence you find? My guess is that they are all technically true (as in, he didn't "breach his bail" because he never paid a bail), but it's also possible that at least one is an outright lie. I and others would be interested to see the clear evidence of this if you can find it.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#176

Post by throwaway6356 »

nkurz wrote: post #92
throwaway6356 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ridiculous hypocrisy they are legally required to do this because to make a public statement would be a violation of the gag order he is under.

It's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure if I believe it. Which gag order is this, and how does it apply to Wikileaks?

It is a gag order on Asssange: He is prohibited from "carrying out activities that could be considered political and interference in the internal affairs of other states, or that may cause harm to the good relations of Ecuador with any other state".

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/16/ecuadorian_embassy_... http://www.codigovidrio.com/code/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/...

Going through his lawyers and explicitly saying that this is a confidential legal document is a way to get press for his case while not technically violating the conditions.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#177

Post by lawnchair_larry »

mywittyname wrote: post #86
porphyrogene wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are confusing a conceivable narrative for a well-reasoned explanation.

I suppose you'll just have to wait for Mueller to wrap up his probe into the matter. Several GRU officers have been brought up on charges related to the hacking of the DCCC and DNC, the subsequent dissemination of their findings to Wikileaks, and related payoffs. This suggests that there is concrete evidence that the GRU was collaborating with Wikileaks, it's just not yet publicly available.

That doesn’t suggest anything that could be called collaboration, nor that the publication had any knowledge of GRU involvement.

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#178

Post by nkurz »

the_cat_kittles wrote: post #101

if you ever needed any more evidence that hn comments are probably full of people paid to say things...

My instinct is to flag this for clearly violating the HN rule against accusing people of being shills[1], but I'm also interested in your perspective.

No, I don't see any evidence of this. Instead, I see people who disagree. What evidence do you see that anyone is being paid to post their opinion in this thread?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#179

Post by InitialLastName »

jessaustin wrote: post #119
mywittyname wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose you'll just have to wait for Mueller to wrap up his probe into the matter. Several GRU officers have been brought up on charges related to the hacking of the DCCC and DNC, the subsequent dissemination of their findings to Wikileaks, and related payoffs. This suggests that there is concrete evidence that the GRU was collaborating with Wikileaks, it's just not yet publicly available.

Wait, sure, but don't hold your breath. This investigation has taken much longer than we were led to expect.

The investigation has taken very little time as yet relative to other investigations of sitting presidents (chart is ~4 months old, but we still have only possibly reached the end of the next shortest investigation) [0]

[0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-manaforts-flip-may-...

Re: Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks

#180

Post by lawnchair_larry »

fixermark wrote: post #123
elif wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which bad behavior are you referring to?

He's continued to claim asylum to dodge a credible rape accusation rather than face justice. [EDIT: his claims of fear of extradition to the US are credible; there was a leaked charge against him in US courts. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/julian-assang... ] At this point, he's dodging Sweden's justice system because he can and because Ecuador allows him to. And all of this distracts from Wikileaks'…

More ironically, you’ve just demonstrated exactly why they found it necessary to address these incorrect claims.
Post reply on HN