231–240 of 577 posts
Is publishing leaked documents protected under the First Amendment?
Is publishing "propaganda" protected under the First Amendment?
I would say the answer to both of these questions is yes.
If true then disgusting and completely unacceptable. The way in which legal systems have been cynically abused to ruin this man's life reflects extremely poorly on the people and institutions concerned. Wikileaks' revelation of the disgusting behavior of the US armed forces in Baghdad was an extremely valuable contribution to society.
The claims of him being a russian asset and the the links to washingtonpost and nytimes as credible sources in this thread is hilarious. I thought hacker news was more rational and logical than my twitter feed - maybe not. Assange and WL is the last bastion of free speech and genuine joirnalism left in our modern age. If you dont see that, then youre a fool.
Justifying it this way is just a ploy to punish the whistleblower and I can't believe how many people go along with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Freedom of the Press is dead. WikiLeaks isn't a news organization, especially when they released campaign emails during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. They have been to be a known tool for the Russian government, even going as far as creating a show for Julian Assange on the state-backed RT TV Network.
And on top of that, WikiLeaks solicited the Trump campaign for a few pages of Trump's tax return with the explicit intent making WikieLeaks seem more non-partisan so as to make the emails inflict more harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Very interesting. Because she was in the room that meant she sent the team to kill Bin Laden? > I never said that I questioned that in the slightest. Not sure where you get that at all. You literally just questioned that. And it was a CIA-led, ie. civilian led, operation, not a military-led one.
The military explicitly played a critical role in planning, leading, and executing this. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Opera... U.S. Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU) and at least 6 members from JSOC planned it in coordination with the CIA.
> The operation, code-named Operation Neptune Spear, was carried out in a CIA-led operation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whataboutism is when an argument is presented with a counterargument of hypocrisy, ie literally what the person replying to me was doing. The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are stil…
Pardon my ignorance, but just so I understand, when you said “Does that excuse the war crimes that were committed?” Which war crimes were you referring to? If I understand the thread correctly, you also seem to be committing textbook gaslighting[0]. If I am misinterpreting the thread, please correct me. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whataboutism is when an argument is presented with a counterargument of hypocrisy, ie literally what the person replying to me was doing. The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are stil…
> The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes" No...they are not protecting themselves. Their crimes have already been exposed. They are prosecuting someone for something that was criminal. > who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and t…
Where did I say that?
If true, this suggests that previous articles about assange being 'practically free to go', and 'just staying in the embassy for attention' were misinformed.
Yea but nobody remembers those.
Even leaks like the Stratfor files are certainly in the best interests of the "little guy," if anyone actually gives a shit about them.
But if "all a man is, is what others say of him," then by watching the news, Assange is just a Russian agent.
By doing this the US is coming to the aid of the many dictators and despots whose crimes Assange has helped reveal. Also, by ignoring the crimes revealed by the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, the US makes it very clear that war-making cronies rule both parties and would never hold each other accountable for anything. To be clear, the war logs revealed that the US classified information solely because it revealed that…
While some of the things that were exposed were certainly illegal and should be handled as such, it's hard to feel any empathy for a guy who is essentially a Russian asset. If you think of him as an extension of Russian military intelligence conducting propaganda wars against its adversaries then it becomes a lot easier to understand why prosecuting him is a genuinely good thing. Russia airing the dirty laundry of ot…
I don't think all of Wikileaks' revelations are from Russia, but even if they all are - and Russia had selfish motivations - it was a benevolent act toward the world. Truth is power, and revealing the truth to the powerless is never an evil act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like excuse-making when provided what you asked for.
There are multiple posters doing this throughout this post. Finding some way to discredit any evidence after they've asked for evidence and then were presented with it.