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

Julian Assange urges US to end Wikileaks 'witch-hunt'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: Julian Assange urges US to end Wikileaks 'witch-hunt'

#71

Post by magoon »

Tycho wrote: post #63
magoon wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also find the idea that you can prosecute someone with espionage (most likely) for what is essentially journalism very disturbing. Is it journalism? I never saw a story when I read the leaks; it seems that their purpose has been to disclose private (stolen) conversations that are obviously state secrets. Update: I'm backing away from this; my only intention was to ask whether it would make anybody a "journalist"…

Well in the era of Watergate it wasn't like dumping the information onto bit-torrent was a viable option for the investigative journalists. They had to write it up in article form just to communicate their findings.

Interesting point, however I am having a hard time coming up with another journalist in this era who reports their findings by dumping information onto bit-torrent.

Re: Julian Assange urges US to end Wikileaks 'witch-hunt'

#72

Post by drone »

kungfooguru wrote: post #69
_wp3r wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not see the point in actively chasing a pawn. Assange was nothing more than a middle man for the crimes committed. Other than putting charges against him in the US as an administrative posture, I do not see the justification for the loss of any political currency in getting him extradited. He is simply not worth it. There is no public opinion win for the the US government in that play, except for maybe we got th…

Umm, what? Who was this attacker? I assume you simply mean an attack happened due to finding out the abuses committed by the US government. As opposed to what you seem to try to imply that the leaks themselves put someone in danger. The truth didn't kill anyone. Those who committed the acts and gave the orders that became the truth that had to be leaked did.

Interesting take: "I assume you simply mean an attack happened due to finding out the abuses committed by the US government."

You do realize, Wikileaks released unredacted documents with names of people who were working with the US to try and right wrongs in their own countries? People who were later targeted by their own governments who are known to "commit abuses.."

Re: Julian Assange urges US to end Wikileaks 'witch-hunt'

#73

Post by magoon »

orbitingpluto wrote: post #70
magoon wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also find the idea that you can prosecute someone with espionage (most likely) for what is essentially journalism very disturbing. Is it journalism? I never saw a story when I read the leaks; it seems that their purpose has been to disclose private (stolen) conversations that are obviously state secrets. Update: I'm backing away from this; my only intention was to ask whether it would make anybody a "journalist"…

I would say yes. Journalism is supposed to guide you to readily available and verifiable facts whenever possible. The journalist gives you insight into an event. One is then able to leapfrog the initial hurdle of that initial research and more easily educate yourself about the world you live in. Without facts and sources, it's just storytime. EDIT: More importantly, you can't divorce journalistic research from journa…

I disagree that "facts" are "journalism" -- but can you even say that the text of a bunch of emails, dumped verbatim, are readily and verifiable facts? Or is it simply somebody else's conversation?

Is whatever you say in email a readily available and verifiable fact? is dumping your private emails "journalism"?

Re: Julian Assange urges US to end Wikileaks 'witch-hunt'

#74

Post by trevelyan »

magoon wrote: post #68
trevelyan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no copyright on government documents. Once you know something it is no longer a secret by definition and you are free to discuss and report on it. It seems with Wikileaks that this is no longer the case, making this a stunning attack on freedom of the press and freedom of speech. If you want to get uptight about the security implications of the leaks, a better place to start is wondering who setup the system…

Now I'm uptight? I raise a valid point -- journalists don't capture and disseminate private conversations, they report. I have never seen a journalistic article from Wikileaks, much as I have never seen a journalist simply distribute a bunch of private conversations with no story.

> journalists don't capture and disseminate private conversations

Perhaps you have heard of the terms "public service" and "public sector"? Government documents are not private conversations and I am genuinely appalled you believe yourself entitled to speak on only those matters your government deems fit for public discourse.

Re: Julian Assange urges US to end Wikileaks 'witch-hunt'

#75

Post by magoon »

magoon wrote: post #68
trevelyan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no copyright on government documents. Once you know something it is no longer a secret by definition and you are free to discuss and report on it. It seems with Wikileaks that this is no longer the case, making this a stunning attack on freedom of the press and freedom of speech. If you want to get uptight about the security implications of the leaks, a better place to start is wondering who setup the system…

Now I'm uptight? I raise a valid point -- journalists don't capture and disseminate private conversations, they report. I have never seen a journalistic article from Wikileaks, much as I have never seen a journalist simply distribute a bunch of private conversations with no story.

> Government documents are not private conversations.

huh? if they weren't private, then why were they newsworthy?

Re: Julian Assange urges US to end Wikileaks 'witch-hunt'

#76

Post by kungfooguru »

drone wrote: post #72
kungfooguru wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm, what? Who was this attacker? I assume you simply mean an attack happened due to finding out the abuses committed by the US government. As opposed to what you seem to try to imply that the leaks themselves put someone in danger. The truth didn't kill anyone. Those who committed the acts and gave the orders that became the truth that had to be leaked did.

Interesting take: "I assume you simply mean an attack happened due to finding out the abuses committed by the US government." You do realize, Wikileaks released unredacted documents with names of people who were working with the US to try and right wrongs in their own countries? People who were later targeted by their own governments who are known to "commit abuses.."

You do realize that our intelligence agencies have linked 0 deaths to these leaks... The very people who want Wikileaks shutdown can't provide accounts of harm done.

Re: Julian Assange urges US to end Wikileaks 'witch-hunt'

#77

Post by glesica »

magoon wrote: post #68
trevelyan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no copyright on government documents. Once you know something it is no longer a secret by definition and you are free to discuss and report on it. It seems with Wikileaks that this is no longer the case, making this a stunning attack on freedom of the press and freedom of speech. If you want to get uptight about the security implications of the leaks, a better place to start is wondering who setup the system…

Now I'm uptight? I raise a valid point -- journalists don't capture and disseminate private conversations, they report. I have never seen a journalistic article from Wikileaks, much as I have never seen a journalist simply distribute a bunch of private conversations with no story.

Seems like a meaningless difference to me. You're saying that if Wikileaks had carefully summarized each document instead of releasing the actual documents then it would be journalism?

Wikileaks presented information, just because that information wasn't in a form that you are comfortable and familiar with doesn't make it not journalism.

No one had ever seen a journalist who published exclusively online until a few years ago and many people claimed that wasn't "journalism". Now bloggers are pretty well-recognized.

The volume of information is so large today that a new form of journalism is required. Wikileaks has provided that, or at least led the charge to provide it.

Wikileaks acted as a clearinghouse for raw information. Then others read it, interpreted it and wrote about it. I don't see the problem.

Re: Julian Assange urges US to end Wikileaks 'witch-hunt'

#78

Post by throwMeAway576 »

drone wrote: post #72
kungfooguru wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm, what? Who was this attacker? I assume you simply mean an attack happened due to finding out the abuses committed by the US government. As opposed to what you seem to try to imply that the leaks themselves put someone in danger. The truth didn't kill anyone. Those who committed the acts and gave the orders that became the truth that had to be leaked did.

Interesting take: "I assume you simply mean an attack happened due to finding out the abuses committed by the US government." You do realize, Wikileaks released unredacted documents with names of people who were working with the US to try and right wrongs in their own countries? People who were later targeted by their own governments who are known to "commit abuses.."

You do realize, Wikileaks released unredacted documents ONLY when The Guardian - by accident - had published the password to the archive in a book.

Re: Julian Assange urges US to end Wikileaks 'witch-hunt'

#79

Post by glesica »

magoon wrote: post #73
orbitingpluto wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say yes. Journalism is supposed to guide you to readily available and verifiable facts whenever possible. The journalist gives you insight into an event. One is then able to leapfrog the initial hurdle of that initial research and more easily educate yourself about the world you live in. Without facts and sources, it's just storytime. EDIT: More importantly, you can't divorce journalistic research from journa…

I disagree that "facts" are "journalism" -- but can you even say that the text of a bunch of emails, dumped verbatim, are readily and verifiable facts? Or is it simply somebody else's conversation? Is whatever you say in email a readily available and verifiable fact? is dumping your private emails "journalism"?

The "fact" is that "somebody said this in an email". Some of the most interesting things in the diplomatic cables were not of the form "X did Y" but rather "X said Y to Z". In that case, yes, an email is a fact.

Re: Julian Assange urges US to end Wikileaks 'witch-hunt'

#80

Post by jeltz »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #21
gasull wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: I didn't understand how Swedish law work. See AndrewDuck's reply. But still, they could interrogate him by videoconference (what Assange offered) or charge him in absence. He hasn't been formally charged of any crime. If they want to prosecute him, they should charge him of something.

That's not how Swedish law works. From Wikipedia: "Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence;[35] the prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. The High Court found that the Swedish process has reached the stage of criminal proceedings, which would be equivalent to having been charged under…

They can still interview him without laying any formal charges. As far as I know the interviews are generally held long before the formal charges are laid.
Post reply on HN