41–50 of 173 posts
How is it possible there is not yet a huge mob gathering near the court and threatening to burn everything. Because, this is literally revolting. How many people support that? And how many people are disgusted by that? Would nobody regret doing nothing?
I doubt most people care. Outside of a few friends, I doubt most people I know know that this is 1) going on and 2) who Assange even is.
There is a double standard. I doubt that the wife of the US diplomat will ever be extradited to the UK after killing a UK citizens. [1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-crash-parents...
How is it possible there is not yet a huge mob gathering near the court and threatening to burn everything. Because, this is literally revolting. How many people support that? And how many people are disgusted by that? Would nobody regret doing nothing?
A lot of people have heard about Wikileaks and Assange, but that doesn't mean that people care or read the news.
It's possible Assange hasn't been sleeping enough for years due to the stress of his situation. The effects of that might resemble those of torture and debilitating drugs. Just something to consider...
"The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election" I'd like to call out the popular and prolific users of hacker news who previously were all about Sweden, sex and election interference and who…
That doesn't even make any sense. How could the US extradite Assange for a crime committed in Sweden ? And why would they extradite for election interference when Barr would just shut it down ?
This is why people were skeptical of the Sweden charges. It was commonly believed that the point of those charges (whether they were true or not) was to get Assange to Sweden, at which point Sweden could roll over, do the US's bidding and extradite him to the US.
There is a double standard. I doubt that the wife of the US diplomat will ever be extradited to the UK after killing a UK citizens. [1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-crash-parents...
The UK-US extradition treaty is already not well regarded in the UK, if the US diplomat does not show up in the UK this is likely to play a big part in how the press treats high profile US extradition cases. It’s definitely an interesting situation.
In 50 years, people will look in disgust and utter disbelief at our treatment of Assange. Or maybe this is too optimistic. Maybe our grandsons will indeed understand us. They will understand us too well, and be ashamed of us.
But is it possible that actually the judge is prepared to deny the extradition, and cannot say anything just yet because of the secret duty? If she thinks all of that is torture for Assange, maybe she is right to want it to end as soon as possible, especially if she already has taken her decision.
Edit: Fwiw I support whistleblowers and government transparency and the end to rampant unconstitutional surveillance overreach but I simply couldn't support Assange after finding that he crossed a known ethical line with the inducement and material support. And Chelsea Manning should've never went to jail. Shes the true whistleblower in all of this. And Adrian Lamo and Assange are the ones that made serious yet avoidable mistakes. He simply should've acted as a carrier/news organization but he/they didn't do that. That and the support from Russia and eagerness to influence the election at all costs while maintaining impartiality is laughable. Maybe Assange could've been a force for good if he hadn't taken sides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is he if not a journalist? He is not accused of leaking documents himself, but of facilitating their dissemination. Sounds more or less like the textbook definition of journalism to me.
So the issue with Assange was that he never showed any "limitation of harm" when he chose not to redact any of the content. It's a pretty core tenant of journalism ethics. Those sort of subtleties are important when you're going to be arguing in front of a judge.
No, it's the "just a blogger" thing - if you only publish on the internet and not in print then your journalistic credentials will always be slightly suspect.
(source: I ran a newspaper, and while 90% of our readers read our stories on our website or FB page, according to our market research the fact that we printed actual paper gave us way more credibility with our audience than competitors who just published on the internet)