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

341–350 of 432 posts

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#341

Post by mindslight »

tptacek wrote: post #335
mindslight wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he cloaks his actions in the hard work and bravery of our free press. What specifically are you invoking here as the "free press" ? There is very little free press in the United States. The overwhelming majority of what is called the press consists of mouthpieces for the ruling power structure, analogous to state media in the USSR. I agree it would have been better for documents to be reviewed before publication ra…

The WSJ, WaPo, and NYT are not analogous to the state media of Russia or the Soviet Union, however fun that might be to say on a message board.

Unsubstantiated rebuttals are fun to say on message boards too, I guess.

It certainly seems like when the de facto government has an agenda (eg attacking Iraq), they all broadcast that message simultaneously. It certainly seems like they choose which presidential candidates are "electable" and then downplay the others (Sanders, Paul, Dean). It certainly seems like they suppress narratives that are unfavorable to the shared business interests of their owners. It certainly seems like they all cooperate with the government to get easy access (embedded reporters, etc) rather than doing the hard work of adversarial investigation.

There are differences of course, like how we get to hear two similar options and pick between them. And how this simple act of choosing makes the population absorb the propaganda better. But I'd call those internal differences in structure, with the overall result being similar.

If you're happy within the Overton window, then of course it looks like Wikileaks is some crazy actor that came out of nowhere. But if you see mainstream media repeatedly acting in concert, then Wikileaks is a predictable reaction.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#342

Post by jessaustin »

balls187 wrote: post #257
nickysielicki wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying his record means the charges are bullshit, but I'm saying if the charges are bullshit and his record is infallible then the implication is that we live under a government without freedom of the press, where truthful hard-hitting journalism gets you put in prison. If you don't believe that Assange has done truthful hard-hitting journalism, or you believe that he isn't a journalist at all, then you can m…

Freedom of the Press has limitations. Example, as a journalist you cannot just walk into a US Army base and start reporting.

Gee, that sounds problematic. We give them $750B/yr, they kill innocent people around the world, and they don't submit to public oversight? I wish we lived in a free society...

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#343

Post by mmcwilliams »

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #330
mmcwilliams wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't your distinction, though. You used the term "public figure" and I think it's a bit dramatic to say that he was doxxed when he wrote under his full name until 2013, references those writings frequently and used that full name on the blog as recently as last year. Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't.

> Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't. The real answer is that it depends. If a public figure is abusing their position, then yes, it is in the public interest to know about this abuse of power. Imagine for a second if every politician’s financial history for all of their financial accounts were on an immutable ledger. That is something that is desirable, though it violates those individu…

It seems to be a very fluid standard, for sure, but there are other variables that are brought up in these discussions beyond whether or not a public figure is abusing their position. Who is publishing? How well-liked the public figure is and by who?

If the standard boils down to there being a journalistic interest in publishing relevant information about a public figure in relation to their abuse of power then I'm not sure how possibly-faked medical records pass that test.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#344

Post by jessaustin »

snypher wrote: post #255
evgen wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since they have provided links and supporting evidence for their assertion I would have to say that right now it seems to look like you are the one engaging in blatant propaganda and deception.

With all respect, a leaked chat log from 'foreignpolicy.com' isn't evidence of anything and shouldn't be used as such.

If one clicks through, one discovers that the "leaked chat log" isn't even quoted or linked from that oddly non-sourced article. If it had ever actually been leaked to the public, a journalist would have shown us rather than just implying.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#345

Post by csharptwdec19 »

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…

This smells to me just a bit.

If this knowledge was disclosed sooner (Because, lets face it, they've loved to spurt out claims about bad things Assange has done,) I would expect a non-negligible number of Wikileaks supporters to stop.

It's one thing to have leaks fed to you, it's another to actively encourage people to do so and name targets.

So... Why are we only hearing about this -now-?

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#346

Post by boomboomsubban »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #245
boomboomsubban wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

War crimes?

wikileaks published just vids of war crimes right? At some point they lost it. Maybe going against USA drove them to the arms of Russia but they lost their innocence.

Even if you think that, the charges are all still from the period of the Iraq leaks.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#347

Post by tptacek »

mindslight wrote: post #341
tptacek wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WSJ, WaPo, and NYT are not analogous to the state media of Russia or the Soviet Union, however fun that might be to say on a message board.

Unsubstantiated rebuttals are fun to say on message boards too, I guess. It certainly seems like when the de facto government has an agenda (eg attacking Iraq), they all broadcast that message simultaneously. It certainly seems like they choose which presidential candidates are "electable" and then downplay the others (Sanders, Paul, Dean). It certainly seems like they suppress narratives that are unfavorable to the…

The bar for how good an argument needs to be before it demands substantiation on HN is low, but it does not in fact touch the ground. Sometimes, it's worth pointing out that a piece of hyperbolic rhetoric is just that, just so we can keep our premises clear. "I don't trust the WSJ or NYT" is a colorable argument we could debate. But "The WSJ and NYT are analogous to state-run media" is not; if you believe that, there's little point in continuing to debate.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#348

Post by jessaustin »

lordlimecat wrote: post #316
fit2rule wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The world is always at war" is not an excuse for the following illegal military murder and death campaigns waged against innocent people: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen. The bombing must stop. The drones must be denied. >Body Count: https://www.psr.org/blog/resource/body-count/ 2 million people lost in one war 'arena' is one thing. Another war arena, is another thing. 12 of them, for 20 years, is s…

You should probably read the source you provide. Like many of these body counts, they make no attempt to differentiate US-caused, coalition-caused, Russian-caused, or opposition-caused deaths--or even whether the rise in mortality was actually caused by the war! So, as is reasonable, you are just blaming them all on the US.

...even whether the rise in mortality was actually caused by the war!

You need proof that war causes death? This seems like some sort of nadir of tabula rasa foolishness.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#350

Post by jessaustin »

himinlomax wrote: post #200
thatlongthrow1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the info was false. >A few hours later, the assessment worsened: a friendly source from CNAIPIC was telling them that some of the documents had been forged. One document number, when checked against CNAIPIC’s system, reportedly corresponded to a wholly unrelated matter. The remaining real documents didn’t seem to have come from CNAIPIC either. Instead, police were apparently investigating “a small IT company that…

So I did a brief Google search and it seems that, just like monocasa mentioned, this was not published by Wikileaks. Are you going to change your stance or are you going to stand by your incorrect, if not slanderous, claim?

This is why they invent new greenbean accounts; they can lie without "consequences".
Post reply on HN