171–180 of 792 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only Hillary Clinton were serving her second term, then maybe he'd have a chance with that argument.
unfortunately he switched from citizen journalist to selective propaganda release and russian propaganda washing.
Only in the sense of a Solzhenitsyn nightmare. There are breathing, ideologically-bent individuals pushing this. Who are they, and how do we hound them like they have hounded him.
Doxxing only works agaisnt normal people. When someone lives inside one of several walled properties, hiding is unnecessary. Offtopic: doxxing is evil. Don't do it.
Devil's advocate: Doxxing isn't any more or less evil than investigative journalism or hiring a PI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might have been partially activist, that still doesn't justify the extradition. The US had no standing, as I believe it's called. They can declare whatever they want "top secret", but that doesn't make a crime for a citizen of another country to publish it. The hacking and conspiracy claims have been added to make it appear as if they have standing, but these are empty. It's another triumph for big budget lawyer c…
I do not think it is a loss for freedom of the press, I think it is an opportunity for the courts to define what a journalist actually is, vs. not. Perhaps the courts will side with Assange and we will find that this is First Amendment protected activity. I personally do not believe it is, but I do think that this situation is a bit unique to modern times and is likely to set precedent one way or the other.
Redefining journalist can let you imprison any and every journalist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
History will be rewritten by the victors.
History gets rewritten constantly. An example: Julius Caesar, hero, martyr or villain? Ask an Italian or a French, probably two different versions. But also ask to an Italian 50 years ago (probably a hero, maybe even a martyr) or today (maybe a war criminal to be judged in the International Court of Justice.) Of course a correct judgement should apply the mindset of when the facts happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I respect your perspective but wholly disagree with your conclusion. There is not a viable concept such as whether a journalist “enables espionage.” Journalism is necessarily adversarial, not pliant.
Thank you for the tactful disagreement and I appreciate your perspective. I also believe journalism is necessarily adversarial and should be allowed to exist with little encumbrance. However, I do think there is a line that needs to be drawn at some point as to what is journalism, versus what is propaganda for a specific agenda masquerading as journalism.
Why does the intent/purpose of the publisher matter here in any way from a legal prospective? I fear that your opinion of his purpose is forming your opinion of its legality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A whole paragraph dedicated to how anonymous internet commenters could be fake spin delivery vehicles, then the suggestion that Assange has been charged with "a relatively minor criminal offence", completely eliding a bunch of politically-motivated now-dismissed sexual assault charges that were the actual impetus for him to hide in a foreign embassy for years. It'd be one thing if he was hiding from a "5 year max" ch…
Julian Assange getting away with his sexual assault of a woman due to his politics is very reminiscent of how Donald Trump avoids blame for his sexual crimes through the lens of politics. Very smart tool to ensure you can never be guilty of anything and your supporters will deny any wrongdoing as politically motivated. It's no surprise that Assanage and Trumps people communicated and coordinated, as these devious tac…
This is far from an accurate representation of the events. You seem consistently misinformed on key points. Perhaps you should do some more research before spreading that misinformation further.
> Julian's sexual assault crimes have nothing to do with the United States or his extradition here, as the original charges were espionage related. It's a red herring for you to bring it up,
You are the one who brought it up. Assange faces up to 5 years for the "assistance in attempting to crack a password hash" and up to 170 years for the crimes he is being charged with under the espionage act.
Only in the sense of a Solzhenitsyn nightmare. There are breathing, ideologically-bent individuals pushing this. Who are they, and how do we hound them like they have hounded him.
Wait, if you don’t know who they are then how do you know they are “breathing, ideologically bent individuals” right before asking who they are? What if instead they are ego fragile and angry at Assange for daring to challenge the unchallengeable order? Or what if this is a case of banal evil? I’m not suggesting any of qualities exist in the persons who are implicated in the question of “who.” I do want to use this o…
Joe Biden was not kidding around when he said America is back. Much better than Trump who was a clowinish buffonish sheep in wolf's clothing obsessed with his twitter account. He was so incompetent he could not start one new war. Meanwhile there is a twitter blackout on following the Ghislaine Maxwell case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
unfortunately he switched from citizen journalist to selective propaganda release and russian propaganda washing.
are you denying he released the truth or are you saying he released the truth, but "others" behaved similarly yet he withheld the truth on them?
Edit: roenxi: Spreading the propaganda that Seth Rich was murdered is not "aggressively telling the truth", it's aggressively and mendaciously lying. It's a bit awkward for you to suggest that it's true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_...
>WikiLeaks statements
>Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled the speculation in an interview with Nieuwsuur published on August 9, 2016, which touched on the topic of risks faced by WikiLeaks' sources.[76] Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange said "we don't comment on who our sources are".[77] Subsequent statements by WikiLeaks emphasized that the organization was not naming Rich as a source, as they do with other leaks.[32] It subsequently came to light that WikiLeaks communicated with the Trump campaign over other issues.[78]
>According to the Mueller Report, WikiLeaks had received an email containing an encrypted file named "wk dnc link I .txt.gpg" from the Guccifer 2.0 GRU persona on July 14, which was four days after Seth Rich died.[79][80][81] In April 2018, Twitter direct messages revealed that even as Assange was suggesting publicly that WikiLeaks had obtained emails from Seth Rich, Assange was trying to obtain more emails from Guccifer 2.0, who was at the time already suspected of being linked to Russian intelligence.[82] BuzzFeed described the messages as "the starkest proof yet that Assange knew a likely Russian government hacker had the Democrat leaks he wanted. And they reveal the deliberate bad faith with which Assange fed the groundless claims that Rich was his source, even as he knew the documents' origin."[82] Mike Gottlieb, a lawyer for Rich's brother, noted that WikiLeaks received the file of stolen documents from the Russian hackers on July 14, four days after Rich was shot. Gottlieb described the chronology as "damning".[83]
The framing of Assange as an innocent “journalist” being persecuted for just doing his job is, in my opinion, disingenuous. I do not necessarily agree with all the actions the US Government has taken with him, or their handling of some of the information that was leaked. However, I do not agree that a “journalist” should be able to enable espionage, let alone encourage/incite it. In case my point is unclear, I consid…
>However, I do not agree that a “journalist” should be able to enable espionage, let alone encourage/incite it. In case my point is unclear, I consider setting up a website purely designed to encourage leaking of potentially classified information and assisting with the ability to do so as being no different than any other criminal conspiracy. Your point is pretty clear. You designated exposing war crimes a criminal…
To reiterate, "Further, I am of the opinion, being someone who was quite literally in Afghanistan when he leaked the information he did, that any probative value of the information Manning leaked was overshadowed by the indiscriminate way in which it was done."
You cannot look at just one small part of what was leaked and ignore the rest. If all that was leaked was the war crimes, then we would not be having this discussion.