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

Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 432 posts

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#71

Post by thatlongthrow1 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #58
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only conclusion I can raise from people like yourself who argue Julian Assange be imprisoned is that you welcome ignorance. You genuinely wish to not know what powerful people are behaving in this world. And that conclusion is in many ways scarier to me than the fact that he is being prosecuted for the crime of journalism.

This is a ridiculously bad faith allegation. Is that really the only conclusion you can raise?

It is amazing how acidic this topic is.

You can't document Assange's drifting from seemingly neutral leader of a leak network staffed by individuals across the world to a lone operator of a clearly biased outfit, without people throwing their accounts into the fire. Making personal attacks like a fella just did here minutes ago.

I didn't think so many people would be saying "Russia anything is lies!" so vehemently given the activist/journalist/governmental sources documenting Kremlin's role in fostering relations with Wikileaks while spinning up their own personas like Guccifer 2.0 to act as fronts for the distribution of hacked data to Assange.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#72

Post by fsloth »

dijit wrote: post #63
thatlongthrow1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think it says something that this is the best you can come up with. Hi I can basically see you sneering with a "gotcha" face through that text. Sorry but Assange's history of leak revisionism, favoring Russia specifically, is deep. When Assange was working with "Anon" who was really an FBI snitch, he accepted files hacked from Syria. When they were released they were missing information about Russia including bank…

Ugh, don't make me do this: Selectively releasing documents is not the same as releasing something later proven to be false, which is what the GP asserted. FWIW you could play devils advocate here and say that wikileaks could not independently verify the omitted things; but I'm not going to go there because it's conjecture. Just as your suggestion that it's collusion with Russia, however likely, is also conjecture.

Selectively releasing everyone else's dirt except for Russia is a strong indicator of non-neutral stance.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#73

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

thatlongthrow1 wrote: post #49
nickysielicki wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A one-off tweet from a wikileaks twitter account about some other organization publishing something questionable is not at all the same as the document dumps that wikileaks publishes and puts their name behind. I'm obviously talking about the latter. I think it says something that this is the best you can come up with.

>I think it says something that this is the best you can come up with. Hi I can basically see you sneering with a "gotcha" face through that text. Sorry but Assange's history of leak revisionism, favoring Russia specifically, is deep. When Assange was working with "Anon" who was really an FBI snitch, he accepted files hacked from Syria. When they were released they were missing information about Russia including bank…

Any proof that WikiLeaks actually had the emails about that particular Russian bank transfer?

The theory you're promoting is that Assange leaked a huge trove of emails on Syria, a Russian ally, including large numbers of emails detailing Syria's relationship to Russia. But then, because Assange is secretly a Russian agent, he removed one particular set of emails.

The obvious question is: why did he publish the emails in the first place?

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#74

Post by simion314 »

raxxorrax wrote: post #51
Traster wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every account of Assange shows a deeply flawed man. Even the generous ones - and whilst he was painted as a freedom fighter for a short period, I'm not convinced that was ever due to anything more than his agenda accidentally aligning with pro government accountability campaigners for a very short time. Also, it seems unlikely there was ever anything to wikileaks beyond Assange - that's certainly what his colleagues…

I find this fascinating. You excuse a state apparatus who you are responsible for as a democratic voter. That state apparatus had clear interests in a certain region and fabricated evidence to justify a war. And you moan about character flaws of someone who helped get evidence of misbehavior to the public? Seriously? No other problems? edit: You know that intelligence agencies try to discredit dissidents and make up…

As a non US person is clear that his support in US fall because of Russia-Trump business (I have no idea if that was clarified by an investigation or it was suppressed) anyway the hypocrisy is clear: "We like lacks about corruption in Russia or China abuses but if you upset my favorite politicians then justice and laws are irrelevant, we can find some bullshit reason to suicide you or put you in prison". what is extremely disappointing is UK and Sweeden authorities abuses revealed by UN , I did not expect them to still be ass kissing US so deep.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#75

Post by cptskippy »

YPCrumble wrote: post #16
jasonvorhe wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have proof of that?

Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the government at this point that they wouldn’t do everything in their power to spy on citizens and punish people for trying to stop them?

The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#76

Post by ReptileMan »

henearkr wrote: post #39
ReptileMan wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean ... the US has not even got hands on him yet. He hasn't been in US custody for a second. There is absolutely no case. Yet. If you want to feel contempt strongly towards someone - the UK, Ecuador and Sweden governments are the ones to blame so far.

Yes, you're right. But the pressure to do so comes from the US all the same... You're right that what's happening in UK with Assange is very disturbing... I followed Craig Murray's blog posts.

Well you have to be special kind of reckless to be in US friendly jurisdictions when pissing off the State Department ...

Assange wanted to play with the big boys. He got his wish granted.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#77

Post by ObsoleteNerd »

DJBunnies wrote: post #4
mcv wrote: post #2

> "Since the early days of WikiLeaks, Assange has spoken at hacking conferences to tout his own history as a “famous teenage hacker in Australia” and to encourage others to hack to obtain information for WikiLeaks. In 2009, for instance, Assange told the Hacking At Random conference that WikiLeaks had obtained nonpublic documents from the Congressional Research Service by exploiting “a small vulnerability” inside the…

I remember him very carefully offering a distinction of what hacking meant in terms of him. He describes the old school term, meaning hacking programs together to make something, not the one meaning to break into/steal.

In the earlier days he very clearly stated he was a hacker “in the Australian scene” and name dropped various IRC channels etc. I have no idea if it was true or not, but I recognised some of the channels mentioned hence it stuck with me.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#78

Post by macspoofing »

tsimionescu wrote: post #48
thatlongthrow1 wrote: post #19

Wikileaks used to be something, then Assange decided to filter leaks based on whatever biases he felt that day. He alienated a lot of his initial supporters doing this, focusing only on leaking content from "the west." Later fully engaging with state sponsored hackers to meddle in the US election[1] while again ignoring any leaks about Russia[2] and friends. As far as I can tell there is nothing left of Wikileaks, it…

So not only are Assange and the people who gave him information supposed to risk their lives to bring these things out to the public, they are also supposed to do it in an objective balanced manner? Facts are facts. As long as they are printing true facts, they can only be doing good, even if they are only printing the truth about one particular country. Even if they were only printing leaks from a single policital p…

I don't think that's what OP meant. At one point, I also thought WikiLeaks was going to be a new type of internet-era news organization pushing for full transparency, regardless of the target. I was disappointed when it turned out they were aimed solely at discrediting America and would editorialize and time their drops for maximum damage. They decided to become that kind of an organization, and they lost credibility in my and many other people's eyes.

>Facts are facts.

No. Facts are never enough. "The Sun sets in the west" is a true fact ... that is compatible with both the heliocentric and geocentric models of our solar system. Facts always need to be contextualized in some narrative or ideology before they are useful (for a specific purpose). True facts can be used to lie about the greater context. That's why objectivity and fairness is so important for news organizations. WikiLeaks is a dishonest organization.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#79

Post by cm2187 »

nickysielicki wrote: post #18

> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked…

Not sure I understand your point, he is not being indicted for publishing false information. Assuming he never did, why would that make the charges bullshit?

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#80

Post by mapgrep »

thatlongthrow1 wrote: post #49
nickysielicki wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A one-off tweet from a wikileaks twitter account about some other organization publishing something questionable is not at all the same as the document dumps that wikileaks publishes and puts their name behind. I'm obviously talking about the latter. I think it says something that this is the best you can come up with.

>I think it says something that this is the best you can come up with. Hi I can basically see you sneering with a "gotcha" face through that text. Sorry but Assange's history of leak revisionism, favoring Russia specifically, is deep. When Assange was working with "Anon" who was really an FBI snitch, he accepted files hacked from Syria. When they were released they were missing information about Russia including bank…

Selective leaking and selective redaction do not correspond to any US crimes and if they did could be leveled against many publishers.

What is the point of raising this in the context of a criminal indictment? I haven’t even examined what you are raising for accuracy, I’m merely asking, what does this have to do with throwing someone in prison?

Post reply on HN