221–230 of 1001 posts
For those who don’t know the obvious reason behind his persecution is Wikileaks revealing embarrassing US secrets (re: embassy cables and Bradley/Chelsea Manning) and publishing IS war crimes in Iraq (re: collateral murder).
Kudos to the Biden administration for putting an end to yet another long running US boondoggle.
Guantanamo should be next.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There has been reporting on this. Apparently there was one zealous person in DOJ pushing the Assange case and everybody else thinks it's too weak to be worth it.
Don’t forget Hillary was fixated on Assange for a long time, and was even quoted with “Can’t we just drone the guy?”. The direct spat lead to Assange helping Trump and the Russians publish Hillary’s email server spool. I don’t like that Assange ended up helping Trump and Russia, but you can’t blame him for helping the one person who can kick the person out of office who wants to Tomahawk you
As far as I know there is zero evidence that wikileaks did not publish everything newsworthy that they were given regardless of who it helped or hindered.
Anyone have anything credible showing they suppressed anything ever?
So I have a couple of thoughts on this. For context, I'm a big fan of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Julian Assange is... more interesting. Imagine you're a journalist and someone hands you a shoebox full of SD cards with classified materials including video evidence of war crimes. Most of us would agree it is the ethical thing to do to publish that and you're definitely a journalist. Now imagine you had a conta…
At the time, I was initially a person who thought that what Wikileaks was doing was a net good for the rule of law, but changed my mind when I learned about the selective nature of what they publish. The fact that they were playing politics, pushing conspiracy theories, and actively coordinating with the Trump campaign completely discredits any moral high-ground they had. You can say that what happened to him is unfair and that may even be true but Assange is no hero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when USA is convicted What does it mean to convict a country? Do all of its citizens serve jail time, proportioned out by how much taxes they paid?
don't take it literally, my friend, tho you understand the point (hopefully).
I understand the desire for justice, but I honestly don't even know what "justice" means when the actor involved is a state. This is, I think, one of the fundamental challenges of the modern world. We've gotten so good at building huge organizations of people (states, corporations, etc.) that can harness the efforts of thousands or millions of people.
But the result incredibly powerful entity has a diffusion of responsibility that confounds our notions of morality, right, wrong, and justice, which were all developed under the assumption that the primary actor is a person.
[flagged]
It amazes me that so many people care more about the act of whistleblowing, which informs us, the citizens, about what our governments are doing that's illegal, than about the illegal activities themselves. What does that say about those people? Are they easily led by emotion? They certainly don't care about the rule of law, if breaking the law by others can so easily be ignored. They aren't particularly patriotic, i…
Which illegal government activities did the Manning/Assange leaks uncover? The only thing I can recall is that "collateral damage" helicopter footage but it was an isolated incident and was deemed legal following investigation.
"Deemed illegal", sounds rubber-stamped.
The fact that you put "collateral damage" in quotes, has the same value as me putting "Murdered by COD players, just for carrying a camera" in quotes.
I stand to be corrected regarding the video in question.
Remember the people who didn't stand by him: The entire left. Most European Governments, who were collaborating in a decade of torture; that he had to be protected by Ecuador is an utter shame. Of course WaPo, NYT, et al. Now every time I hear a high pitched social justice squeal from these folks, I realize that it's selective and merely self-serving.
Sorry, political rant because this is a political topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The case is federal, it's not confined in jurisdiction. But the plea deal is being entered there because of "defendant’s opposition to traveling to the continental United States to enter his guilty plea and the proximity of this federal U.S. District Court to the defendant’s country of citizenship, Australia, to which we expect he will return at the conclusion of the proceeding" https://storage.courtlistener.com/reca…
> proximity of this federal U.S. District Court to the defendant’s country of citizenship, Australia This is a little disingenuous, and made me chuckle. It's faster and cheaper to get to Australia from the US mainland than it is from Saipan. Yes, it's physically closer as stated, but does not confer the claimed benefits.
He is a legend and should inspire future whistleblowers. Both his leaks and trials exposed how corrupt the justice system is.
What, by picking and choosing what content to release to push a political agenda? Like getting leaked data from the DNC and RNC and coordinating with the Trump campaign to time DNC leaks for maximum effect (I have no love for the DNC) while not releasing RNC content sent to you?
I think you've confused wikileaks with the new york times there. The times definitely pick and choose. I have seen no evidence that wikileaks suppressed anything ever. Link if you have it as that would make them more like the times.