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

381–390 of 432 posts

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#381

Post by [deleted] »

belorn wrote: post #372
tptacek wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You wrote just minutes before this post that wikileaks "literally dispatching Lulzsec". Seems quite hyperbolic to claim that they had any power to control lulzsec and dispatch them as if Lulzsec was their underlings. So maybe we should all just tone down the colorful language a bit and use a bit less extreme rhetoric to make our points.

[deleted]

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#382

Post by e12e »

mhoad wrote: post #332
e12e wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being charged with something is a far cry from being found guilty of something! This is a federal court finding that people that revealed the war crimes its government perpetrated "did so illegally". Meanwhile they of course don't file charges against the war criminals.

I feel you are talking about a more abstract concept here where of course there can be truth in it. I'm talking about a very specific set of actions that look absolutely nothing like journalism https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbWxt13XsAIaOTm?format=png&name=...

Again, these are allegations by the federal government and an informer for the FBI (presumably someone black mailed with the threat of unreasonably long prison sentence).

That does not make it untrue - but it's not like it's evidence weighed by a jury in a fair trial - it's very much one side of the story?

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#383

Post by belorn »

tptacek wrote: post #380
belorn wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wrote just minutes before this post that wikileaks "literally dispatching Lulzsec". Seems quite hyperbolic to claim that they had any power to control lulzsec and dispatch them as if Lulzsec was their underlings. So maybe we should all just tone down the colorful language a bit and use a bit less extreme rhetoric to make our points.

This would be a better mic drop if several pages of the indictment weren't dedicated to establishing that fact pattern. Obviously, you can dispute the indictment --- the veracity of the indictment isn't my point. But I contend: any argument you make about my summary of that portion of the indictment is going to illustrate exactly what I mean by the difference between a colorable argument and the mind 'mindslight made…

"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 materials would be from the CIA, NSA, or the New York Times. WikiLeaks obtained and published emails from a data breach committed against an American intelligence consulting company by an “Anonymous” and LulzSec-affiliated hacker. According to that hacker, Assange indirectly asked him to spam that victim company again."

The language used by the justice department uses less harsh rhetoric to describe its own indictment than your summery. The difference between providing a list of targets in a communication with a group leader, and literally dispatching a group against a list of targets, is two different statements. The later is more colorful and implies relationships which is not found. Asking and dispatching also have a very different implied tone, one being a request and the later being an order.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#384

Post by okamiueru »

DavidVoid wrote: post #258
okamiueru wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought this was well established and obvious for anyone who followed the case. The timeline for this whole ordeal, the motivation for the original complaints, the contact the suppose victims had and the messages they wrote after the fact. Not to mention the breach in anonymity for these cases in Sweden. As such, I don't think these are "grand accusations", this is more what one should reasonably conclude, if you f…

If it's such a "well established and obvious fact" then cite some sources and give some proof that the accusations were faked.

As much as I do think it is a reasonable request, I don't feel like doing it. Or, I did, I googled it, read some articles on the rather suspect circumstances, the rather weak allegations, and the process that was poorly handled at best. It wasn't hard. It might seem like a rather poor way to conduct a discussion, but let me be clearer. I do not care enough to convince you, or anyone else. I meant to say the original comment wasn't as controversial as it was made out to be.

Edit: to those who think what I wrote merited downvotes, I suggest that the effort to find sources should not always need to fall on anyone who claims anything otherwise. To some extent, there is reasonable assumption that someone should be able to figure stuff out and educate themselves. There are plenty of resources found just in this hacker news discussion alone. And there are search engines when if combined with some critical thinking should get you a step further. I've had too many such back and forths, and facts and references rarely have an effect.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#385

Post by cptskippy »

jessaustin wrote: post #97
cptskippy wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused.

Assange is the one in jail. If "proof" had any chance of putting e.g. Pompeo in jail, we'd be happy to provide it.

I'm not defending anyone. In my opinion everyone involved in this stinks. Everyone on both sides has been doing shady and questionable things.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#386

Post by jessaustin »

lordlimecat wrote: post #374
jessaustin wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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.

If you're going to choose to misrepresent / misunderstand what I said, there isnt going to be much point in discussion. But in case there was confusion here, I would like a claim that X deaths were caused by Y war to be backed up by evidence rather than "obviously war causes death, so this war must have caused that death!" The rise in mortality could be partly caused by war, and partly by changing political factors,…

When you ask how many deaths in Iraq were caused by "the Russians", you lose any assumption of intent to engage in good-faith discussion. We know you didn't read the 97-page study linked by GP, because it discussed the question of who caused the many deaths in several sections, including one beginning on page 28. Before examining the figures more closely, the Physicians for Social Responsibility observe the following:

A priori, of course, those who started the war also carry the main responsibility for all victims. Since the assault on Iraq unequivocally constituted an aggression in violation of international law, the U.S. and its allies are also responsible for all its consequences.

What could you possibly be thinking? "Of the million violent combat deaths in Iraq through 2012, we should only blame USA for 600k, not 850k!" Such an argument would be silly, if it weren't completely monstrous.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#387

Post by rorykoehler »

recursive wrote: post #273
rorykoehler wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still waiting for a valid explanation of what pizza is code for because they certainly aren’t talking about pizza the food in those emails.

You may be waiting for a long time. That doesn't really provide any support for the satanic child sex cult thing either though.

I don’t know what they’re talking about. Could literally be anything but they would only codify something they wanted to hide. It’s very weird but I’m not into speculating.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#388

Post by bigbob2 »

ShamelessC wrote: post #356
bigbob2 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that have to do with Assange being charged? EDIT: It seems any effort to seek clarification is discouraged here. My apologies.

Sorry you were downvoted. Here's an upvote on me because clarification is good. The context you are missing is that there are some sibling comments here claiming that wikileaks has never posted info with questionable veracity. I believe the Steve Jobs leak is one such case. I also was pointing out that sometimes certain types of information don't need to be leaked at all. I personally believe medical info should be v…

Thanks for the context--that definitely makes sense. It seems fair to say that legitimate leaks were probably diluted by baseless and largely irrelevant claims such as the Steve Jobs leak. Definitely fair to say if it can be done to Steve Jobs it can be done to Joe Sixpack as well.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#389

Post by tptacek »

belorn wrote: post #383
tptacek wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be a better mic drop if several pages of the indictment weren't dedicated to establishing that fact pattern. Obviously, you can dispute the indictment --- the veracity of the indictment isn't my point. But I contend: any argument you make about my summary of that portion of the indictment is going to illustrate exactly what I mean by the difference between a colorable argument and the mind 'mindslight made…

"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 m…

I'm now working from memory on this, and you can correct me and I'll listen, but what I read in that indictment was:

* Assange had direct contact with some Lulzsec members.

* Assange recruited "Teenager" to liaise with the computer underground.

* "Teenager" represented themselves as an agent of Wikileaks reporting directly to Assange.

* "Teenager" arranged for Lulzsec to take target lists from Wikileaks.

* The transactions in which those target lists were communicated were overseen by Julian Assange; in at least one case, there's video evidence of that occurring.

If your argument is that members of Lulzsec were free to disregard Wikileaks directives, that's a distinction without a difference, at least legally. The same fact pattern is true of most criminal conspiracies.

I used the term "winged monkeys" to describe Lulzsec, which might have been part of what set you off, because, like, Topiary was not literally a simian thrall to Assange. My point there was simply that the law, and the DOJ, and, probably, juries will look at Lulzsec as an purely criminal element of the case; there will be no regard to any larger political goals Lulzsec might have had.

I feel at this point like, unless I got the indictment completely, dramatically wrong, my point about "colorable argument" versus "bullshit rhetoric" has been made.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#390

Post by SkyBelow »

aka1234 wrote: post #310
SkyBelow wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the conspiracy theory is just insane. Almost as insane as the conspiracy theory that one of the world's largest religious organizations was engaging in something similar, except at a scale spanning every continent except Antarctica and having done so for at least as long as living memory. For another conspiracy theory, what about the idea that if a conspiracy was uncovered, instead of denying it those with some…

Pizzagate != Epstein Leaking Podesta's email spawned a conspiracy theory that high-ranking Democrats were a part of a satanic child abuse and traffic ring. It was specifically partisan. Meanwhile there are multiple layers to the Epstein case. Yes, Epstein was a nexus of child abuse. He was a terrible human being who got away with years of child abuse because of his money and powerful connections. Yes, he died under m…

Imagine if there was something larger than just what that one billionaire was involved in. Kinda like how when stories about the Catholic Church broke there were just a few high level Bishops involved until much more work was done to pull back the curtains.

Now imagine some of that gets leaked in a partisan fashion. Maybe on purpose. Maybe by chance. A cover up could be attempted, but that might bring in more investigation. Maybe it would be better to forcefully corrupt it instead. Go from MK Ultra conspiracy theory to moon landings were faked and the earth is flat conspiracy theory. All you have to do is purposefully 'leak' even crazier stuff while making it hyper partisan so that our existing political divide feeds into it.

Not saying they are equal, but what if they are both views into a larger conspiracy, though one of those views was purposefully corrupted to try to make any similar conspiracy theory be viewed as utter nonsense. Make it so people think moon landings or flat earth instead of MK Ultra or Operation Northwoods.

Post reply on HN