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

Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

harpers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 355 posts

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#251

Post by superkuh »

nceqs3 wrote: post #95
superkuh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Assange is also charged for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and conspiring to do so. But if you read all the detailed reporting from Wired (and others) at the time, including interviews with the rat (Adrian Lamo, https://www.wired.com/2010/06/leak/ , https://www.wired.com/2010/05/lamo/ ) who made up that claim to save his own butt, it's clear that that charge is false as well. Assange never commited compute…

Okay, so he can make his case in court then. Honestly he has a pretty good chance of being found not-guilty. I hate the guy, but he is certainly incredibly charismatic and will an have all star legal defense.

If you think Assange will get a fair trial, or even trial, in the USA I have a bridge to sell you. He'd get a closed military tribunal, or, a "national secrets" closed trial. https://www.amnesty.org/en/petition/julian-assange-usa-justi...

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#252

Post by mhh__ »

93po wrote: post #243
lamontcg wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 'Russian collusion case' has been thoroughly discredited No, "collusion" doesn't exist as a crime. It wasn't discredited it just doesn't exist as a criminal thing. And it turns out that "conspiracy" is something that requires the participants to understand that they're doing something wrong, and Mueller couldn't find any evidence of that. When you're rich and committing white collar crimes then the defense of "…

> There was plenty of evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign, Wikileaks and the Russians. There is zero reputable evidence of this

There's no evidence at all it was from anyone else.

Where is the evidence that it was Seth Rich for example? Alex Jones?

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#253

Post by mhh__ »

93po wrote: post #244
wutbrodo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be missing context here, but you're referring to the fact that they leaked the Russian-state-hacked DNC emails, right? Could you elaborate on why you think it's "selective" to have leaked those? Otherwise, it seems like you're saying "they're bad [via an unsupported claim like 'selectively truthful'] because they hurt my $politicalside"

> Russian-state-hacked DNC emails, right? They weren't Russian state hacked, this is propaganda.

Lots of private companies (there's a list on Wikipedia) performed their own analysis and came to the conclusion that Guccifer 2.0 was/is Russian, what says you?

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#254

Post by bayesian_horse »

mariusor wrote: post #229
bayesian_horse wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, he was hiding from rape and espionage/computer hacking charges. There's nothing fishy about either of those, conspiracy theories not withstanding. "Everyone made fun of him" is a large overstatement. He didn't want to face any of the three or four justice systems he was dealing with (Uk, Sweden, US and Australia) so he opted to go into Asylum in that embassy. He could have been convicted (or acquitted) of…

You're rewriting history. When he asked for asylum Assange was only seeking refuge from being questioned on Swedish soil about the rape allegations from 2010. When he was granted asylum however, he breached the bail conditions from the UK and there were indeed two governments after him. But, I repeat, no espionage/computer charges were known until 2018.

He assumed, and rightly so, that the US government was after him. Otherwise he wouldn't have stayed in the embassy past the charges in Sweden getting dropped. It is immaterial if the indictments were known or even already existed.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#255

Post by yucky »

caskstrength wrote: post #179
yucky wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He literally started the war. When do you think the war started?

> When do you think the war started? When do _you_ think the war started? Annexation of Crimea was ordered by Putin.

Do you remember what happened right before he annexed Crimea?

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#256

Post by yucky »

ip26 wrote: post #194
yucky wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean Wikileaks released info that was incorrect, or just that they released info that makes people you support look bad?

Are those the only possible reasons you can imagine to dislike or mistrust a source of information?

The sad reality is the people who hate Assange most now are the ones who loved him for Collateral Murder, because it was damaging to their enemies. Once he released information that was just as accurate, but damaging to their political allies, all bets were off.

Those are the facts.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#257

Post by fmajid »

There are some signs new Australian PM Albanese has been quietly working to secure the release of Assange, but he is now a broken man after a decade of effective imprisonment and the last few years of torture. The deterrent effect against any would-be whistleblowers has been achieved.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#258

Post by fmajid »

calibas wrote: post #197
wunderland wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which governments would you consider “open and honest” democracies?

It's a spectrum, and certain countries embody the ideal more than others. I don't think a completely open and honest democracy exists yet though.

Iceland or Switzerland?

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#259

Post by fmajid »

DangitBobby wrote: post #29
nabla9 wrote: post #9

Cockburn's story is not the full story. Assange is not charged only for doing journalism, such as revealing secret information. Assange is also charged for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and conspiring to do so. Journalists rightfully defend Assange only in the the first type of charges, but not in the second type. He should go to US and face charges. Assange stopped being journalist at some point and start…

Weird that the only method which would allow you reveal government crimes happens to itself be a crime! Almost convenient, really.

The best Catch is Catch-22.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#260

Post by namdnay »

phphphphp wrote: post #56
superkuh wrote: post #2

It's pretty clear what happened. People started to view the reporting of Wikileaks as evil or fake as soon as it negatively impacted $theirpoliticalside. Once these perceptions fell into place it was easy to disregard all the good, villify him personally, and ignore the authoritarian and illegal actions taken against him.

From the start, wikileaks was a partisan project masquerading as a righteous cause. Those of us old enough to remember their original releases (like “Collateral Murder”) remember that wikileaks was always about building a narrative rather than exposing the truth. Suggesting that people started thinking negatively about wikileaks once it came for “their side” is painfully revisionist. Many people believe wikileaks is…

> Those of us old enough to remember their original releases (like “Collateral Murder”)

That was very very far from being "their original releases". wikileaks used to be a real "wiki of leaks". it was quite glorious, a real goldmine for journalists to work through

Post reply on HN