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

The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 577 posts

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#511

Post by hackinthebochs »

monocasa wrote: post #509
hackinthebochs wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As usual, context is critical. By the end of the primary, DWS was a lightning rod of controversy. Hillary recognized DWS was an obstacle to the Bernie wing rallying behind her and so she made a deal with DWS to get her to step down without a fight. She wasn't "forced" out due to wrongdoing, it was purely a political move to put the primary fights to rest and look towards defeating Trump. Had DWS stayed and defended h…

> As usual, context is critical. By the end of the primary, DWS was a lightning rod of controversy. Hillary recognized DWS was an obstacle to the Bernie wing rallying behind her and so she made a deal with DWS to get her to step down without a fight. She wasn't "forced" out due to wrongdoing, it was purely a political move to put the primary fights to rest and look towards defeating Trump. Had DWS stayed and defended…

>If DWS stepping down was a purely optics move, then why was she then immediately added as a campaign chair to the Clinton campaign

It was a part of the deal to get DWS to resign. Hillary created a token position for DWS. It's like you don't understand politics at all.

>Yes the same deal was available to the Sanders campaign, in that they were also essientially allowed to donate ~$100 to the Clinton campaign for every dollar they raised. Yes, the setup was that all VF money was to make it's way to the Clinton campaign. I wonder why they didn't take that wonderful offer.

Yeah, that's bullshit. I'm gonna need some real sources for this one.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#512

Post by darawk »

stavros wrote: post #236
darawk wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Your response was the whataboutism that Assange shouldn't be extradited because the US committed war crimes. Where did I say that?

If you weren't saying that, then what was the point of your comment?

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#513

Post by darawk »

rorykoehler wrote: post #434
darawk wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but do the war crimes the US committed mean that Assange is not guilty of being a Russian asset?

No and no buts. Talking about Assange being a Russian asset or not is just a bs distraction. The US are the criminals here. Let's focus on that.

The article is about Assange's extradition. What does the US being criminal or not have to do with that?

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#514

Post by rorykoehler »

darawk wrote: post #513
rorykoehler wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No and no buts. Talking about Assange being a Russian asset or not is just a bs distraction. The US are the criminals here. Let's focus on that.

The article is about Assange's extradition. What does the US being criminal or not have to do with that?

I'm not talking about the article I'm talking about the context.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#515

Post by thousandautumns »

sjg007 wrote: post #412
FireBeyond wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. Then why was it "timely" to release material critical of the left leaning factions of US government... ... but at the same time "not timely" to release material critical of the right leaning factions?

Does this ignore the fact that Wikileaks might have been played?

Possibly, but:

1. Wikileaks has declined to publish leaks critical of Putin and Russian in the past 2. Wikileaks inexplicably denigrated the release of the Panama papers, which contained lots of damning information about several Russian oligarchs and key Putin allies, despite the fact that it seems like something they would be supportive of 3. Assange had his own show on Russian state-sponsored television

It is entirely possible that Wikileaks was duped by the Russian government. But there is lots of circumstantial evidence that makes the idea seem suspect.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#516

Post by boomboomsubban »

FireBeyond wrote: post #397
sjg007 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is partisan?

Contrived and controlled releases to influence a narrative in a particular desired direction. Being given a trove of documents categorized as misdeeds by both sides of government and largely sitting on those by one side, and releasing those that adversely impact the other. Partisan.

>Being given a trove of documents categorized as misdeeds by both sides of government and largely sitting on those by one side, and releasing those that adversely impact the other

That seems like a fine reason to call someone partisan, but doesn't sound like anything Assange has been shown to have done.

Besides, the press is often partisan. That doesn't mean we should abandon a free press.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#517

Post by boomboomsubban »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #418
CryptoPunk wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this claim a lot, yet no evidence to substantiate it. What evidence do you have that he is/was a Russian asset? And what does it matter if it's a Russian asset doing the leaking, instead of a selfless journalist? Is the leaking illegal or not? This "Russian asset" angle seems like ad hominem to make people acquiesce to violating freedom of speech.

CIA Director: 'It's time to call out Wikileaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.' It's normal for us not to have any direct evidence, but to see the results of their behavior. CIA on the other hand might have recordings, communication etc. They have been digging for years.

We also know, via leaked Snowden documents, that the intelligence community has been looking for ways to discredit Wikileaks for about a decade. The CIA is not a trustworthy source, if they have proof it needs to be presented.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#518

Post by HappySweeney »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #506
7000skeletons wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but people get upset when you point the fact out to them, sometimes. Bubbles are what OTHER people inhabit, see. We're all special and unique free-thinkers immune to unconscious biases. Or something.

yeah, I'm seeing opportunity here... who wants a Bubble Buddy?... someone from a diagrammatically opposite bubble from you, so you can see how the other half think

I actually do this with friends. It rarely goes well.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#519

Post by cwkoss »

michaericalribo wrote: post #276
cwkoss wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who wishes to discredit Wikileaks has a strong incentive to release documents which could cast doubt on the authenticity of a Wikileaks release, and in turn the organization as a whole. Many people wish to discredit Wikileaks. So far no one has provided evidence that Wikileaks has ever doctored, edited or manufactured anything in their releases. I think that indicates something, but it's certainly not conclusi…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Unfortunately, most public debate about intelligence organizations must be rooted in speculation, as we don't have reliable information about their activities.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#520

Post by cwkoss »

kristjansson wrote: post #398
cwkoss wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia airing the dirty laundry through a side channel is MUCH more benevolent than the other things (like blackmailing our world leaders) they could do with this. 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.

The question is whether WL has passively (or worse, actively) allowed its position as a conduit of information to be leveraged by malevolent actors to shape (or distort) the truth? Obviously leaks that reveal actual wrongdoing are an unalloyed good. When the leaks that merely provide voyeuristic windows into the routine business of institutions (e.g. the diplomatic cables), the social value of the visibility becomes…

I don't understand how publishing primary source documents, even selectively, can be called distortion of truth.

The cablegate dump had many interesting revelations https://theweek.com/articles/488953/wikileaks-cablegate-dump...

Some may believe it is in the public interest to hide US aggression to protect ourselves from repercussions. I think it is necessary to expose US aggression to public light to minimize its use altogether. If you can't justify an action to the public, perhaps you should not be spending taxpayer dollars to do it clandestinely.

Post reply on HN