Because the official currency of Ecuador is the US Dollar, and the US Government can print all of the US Dollars it wants, then printing Ecuadorian currency for bribes is not counterfeiting.
You're not wrong. But that crime is on false foundations given that it only exists because of US pressure and influence in Sweden to create the extremely disproportional response to his "crimes" there.
I find it funny that out of all the smears and false accusations that failed, and even small countries like Iceland were kicking out squads of FBI agents sent to frame Assange(1), that the one thing that stuck to him in the media was this cat accusation.
>In addition, “A young online activist, Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson (known as Siggi), told a closed session of Iceland’s Parliament this year that he had been cooperating with United States agents investigating WikiLeaks at the time of the FBI’s visit in 2011,” the New York Times wrote.
>According to former Wikileaks member Birgitta Jonsdottir, who is now a member of Iceland's Parliament, Thordarson had been going back and forth visiting Assange in England, where Assange had been under house arrest at the time, and during that time the FBI tried to get Thordarson to wear a wire. Some fellow activists suggested that Thordarson had worked as a double agent for Assange in this capacity, but ultimately, the US investigators' presence left a mark on the Wikileaks members back in Iceland.
>The FBI conducting an investigation and the FBI "framing" someone aren't comparable accusations, since one is lawful while the other is unlawful.
According to the article, the FBI lied to the Icelandic government in order to do its "investigation" (of what crime?), so I'm not sure "lawful" describes this activity.
You're technically right. They were only there illegally and under false pretenses to investigate Assange. There was never any evidence they were framing him.
I imagine it is more todo with politics than a cat. Ecuador is heavily indebted to China due to previous President Correa turning away from the west and pivoting to China.
With oil prices so low the country is unable to pay the loans and in need of refinancing. The new president has tried to bring the country back into the western sphere of influence by going back to the world bank / IMF (one of those or a similar western financial institution.
There was a BBC interview with Moreno where they asked him why he was kicked out and he brought up the cat story. They then asked him if it wasn't instead because Assange was a spy. He said no.
I made a complaint to the BBC about not asking about this somewhat critical fact and Liam Reynolds of the BBC replied that they were "fair and balanced" because they considered both accusations that he didn't clean up after his cat and the accusations that he was spying. So there's that.
Most journalists are simply cowards. They know the importance of the things they are covering, and they know that saying the wrong things will be bad for them. So they play along the game, knowing that maintaining the facade they will get good promotions and stay in the media. That's the only explanation I can find for the way they are complicit with this kind of thing.
It's comical and sad how effective the "he's dirty" smearing (true or not) riled up the layman.
I bet everyone is kicking themselves for not trying it years ago, coming up with elaborate accusations when all they needed to say is that he deserves it because he's a grumpy slob.
The length of time he was there was astonishing. I'm surprised it was more than 6 months. It couldn't have carried on for ever. One medical emergency and it would all have been over anyway.
Ecuador has a puppet government obviously, and the US is trying to censor journalists ala China and the Middle East. How to best make a journalist shut up if not by jailing him?
Wikileaks has an impeccable record. They’ve never had to retract a story. They’re also doing a duty to the public in uncovering government and corporate secrets, exactly what a journalist should be doing.
Out of the DNC document dump? At least a quarter were confirmed to be outright forgeries (with fingerprints implicating Russia), and of the remainder almost all had at least some changes from the originals.
There was also the documents related to the DNC aide who was murdered, all of which were demonstrated to be forgeries.
Some people 'believe' that they were forged. a few lacked signatures. A couple were dated after the hackers were apparently 'kicked out' of the servers. But nothing had been proven.
Pants are shirts! Assange participated in the Seth Rich conspiracy, intimating that Rich had possibly been one of the DNC sources. There’s an obvious difference between never issuing a retraction and never needing to.
But they failed to bring one story: the emails of the GOP. What they did with the hacked emails from the Democrats is disgusting. Even if they are still not under the influence of Russia, they let the GOP/Russia use them as a vehicle to influence that election. And now it bites them in the ass, as if nobody could foresee that Trump would go after Assange after all.
Wikileaks never published stories. They've focused on some elements of the data they had in order to spread the message about the entire dataset they had.
What's wrong with that approach is that everyone else got his/her private communications released publicly even if they didn't do anything wrong in particular. They were in a now-public database that exposed dirt on someone else, as a collateral damage. Wikileaks hoped that people would find more dirt from looking at the entire datasets, but what we got instead was conspiracy theories (like Pizzagate).
This is the opposite of the Panama/Paradise Papers approach, that only publishes the incriminating parts of the dataset, while guarding everyone else who happened to be a part of the same database.
I agree with the goal of Wikileaks, but not their approach.
Hopefully in the 21st century, we can be a bit more nuanced than just "stealing is bad, mkay". The intent must be factored in, and maybe the result.
Also, not necessarily saying he's a journalist, but there's a reason journalist have special protections in many countries. Exposing corruption or the failings of powerful people is always risky, and I'm glad some people decide to do it.
That is actually not a good sign. Anyone with a sufficiently long track record is going to make some mistakes because no one is perfect. If you refuse to issue any retractions or updates, what that really means is that you refuse to admit that you make mistakes.
There's a difference in publishing classified content (which is what journalists do) and actually stealing that content (which is what whistleblowers usually do). AFAIK Assange did not steal anything but only published what he got.
Manning was one of the best IT people in the whole military sector where he was based at. Wikileaks giving Manning technical help how to steal data is ludicrous... Manning first approached a hacker friend of his regarding the data that he already had, and that hacker friend of his told him to go to Wikileaks. After Wikileaks published the stuff, the hacker friend (diagnosed as Autist with loads of mental health problems) told the police that Manning stole the data
Ecuador isn't a single entity. Coincidentally, they've had enough after the government changed? For a slightly unbelievable reason which they've never released any evidence for? And now this low blow?
I feel like this is a conspiracy theory type territory where before Ecuador was a brave independent nation, but the moment they do something someone doesn't like they're a puppet, not a single entity, and every event possible is pointed to be part of the conspiracy theory, even handling of personal items....
Look it up, with the last president, Correa, Ecuador was significantly backing away from the West and being more friendly with China and Russia, but this new president is pro-West. A month after they trade Assange, somehow Ecuador secures a 6 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund, while previously no one bat an eye. The current regime is definitely a puppet government
Look at my comment again. I said "more friendly with Russia and China". That does not imply that I said that Ecuador was previously a puppet of China and Russia, simply that it was more friendly with them than they were the West.
I'll agree reading between the lines and conspiracy theories are related; you shouldn't necessarily believe everything you're told. The difference is, I'm willing to change my mind to the simplest explanation with some evidence (conspiracy theories don't usually do that).
But also, a reminder: Conspiracy theories have gotten a terrible name recently via all the batshit insane ones. Some of them turned out to be true.
The ecuadorian government changed during this time. They hosted him for 7 years, which for 6 of those years there was a different president called Correa who granted Assange the asylum and supported him. After 6 years, a different president was elected called Lenin Moreno, who is pro-US and was willing to trade Assange in order to obtain loans for Ecuador and possibly some corruption along the way. Also, Assange did publish documents that Moreno is corrupt, with accounts with millions of dollars in off-shore Carribean banks.
Your definition of journalism is a bit distorted given the current journalism environment as an example. The current scene is that all journalists have editors who comply with their editors and the editor's backers (institutions or private organizations, CEOs, Managers, Lobbyists, Political Parties, financiers). These editors are playing the politics game, not the journalist game. Initially Wikileaks was actually mediating whisteblowers and big publishers, but big news organizations werent publishing what they were sending them because it didnt work with their narrative. The military docs that Wikileaks published were first sent to New York Times, however, NYT didnt want to publish the files at all, they werent even excited by them.
My definition is not distorted. I’m abiding by the standard.
If you want to redefine what makes a journalist, then we have to have another discussion.
Edited: Sorry. Also have a serious problem with the accusation that editors on whole are compromised. They’re some of the most hard-nosed people I know—To a fault—And to my professional annoyance...
Everyone is a journalist nowadays because everyone has social media, a blog, a photo camera, and other means to release content made through observation(s).
However, there's a distinction between journalist and professional journalist. He worked with professional journalists at various points in his life, that's for sure.
Based on whose definition? Is a journalism degree a requirement? If you define it solely in economic terms, then a part-time stringer for Reuters isn't a journalist because, after all, they're not "professional" journalists. Wasn't this the argument made in Myanmar when it incarcerated the two Reuters 'journalists'? Freelance journalists are not journalists? Or do you want to go down the path of having government license journalists? Then there's no doubt.
Some countries do this already. The writers who contributed to Ariana Huffington's blog but didn't share in the payday when she sold it? Were they journalists? The DoJ reached the conclusion that there was no principled distinction between the NYTimes and Wikileaks. Trump's DoJ reached a different conclusion. The UK has already recognized Assange as a journalist. He may be a new media journalist, he may be a crusading journalist, he may be an unpopular journalist, but he is a journalist by any reasonable definition: he gathers news and publishes it.
Based on his professional behaviour he’s as much a journalist as the writers for the National Enquirer. That is, he has a penchant for selectively burying information when it suits him.
I'm surprised Julian Assange hasn't committed suicide. In my life from what's observable, I doubt anyone believes the law is upheld by the current generation of people in power. People of authority will just ignore the rights when convenient and honour them when an agenda is being pushed. I think Assange has his past to thank for how his life situation panned out. In his younger age people actually cared about honouring the rights of the accused more so than today.
"I think Assange has his past to thank for how his life situation panned out. In his younger age people actually cared about honouring the rights of the accused more so than today."
That's a pretty naive view of the justice system. I don't think it was better in the past at all.
In his younger age people actually cared about honouring the rights of the accused more so than today.
I'm older than Assange is, and I can tell you that is laughably wrong. I have grown up with the idea that if The Man(tm) wants to stick you with something, they'll find something that will stick, and I'm rarely disappointed. I'd bet a paycheck that one could find examples going back a thousand years. I know the phrase "don't poke the bear" has been around a lot longer than either Assange or I.
The lawyer is doing his job, and is mainly referring to the unprecedented case of Ecuador just handing over personal possessions to the US -- a country that is trying to extradite him on the most tenuous of claims.
> There's no way that having security cameras in your own embassy is an "illicit operation"
If they're focused on and used for recording an individual granted asylum, how can that possibly be compatible with even the vaguest principles of privacy?
>If they're focused on and used for recording an individual granted asylum...
Was that the purpose? Were there no security cameras before? If this was a new installation, was he aware of it? Did the placement of the new cameras take privacy into consideration (e.g. avoiding sleeping quarters, toilets, etc.)?
great questions. how do you expect to have answers if even the reason for the main event, the hand over of Assange, is surrounded with disinformation ranging even from literal shit on the walls?
we will never know what exactly happened on this one. that is for sure.
A lot of people seem to have a very narrow idea of privacy.
For what it's worth there were also allegations of microphones being used to record private conversations.
The release of footage from the embassy to the international media seemed a particularly bizarre way to announce to the international community that your government has pure contempt for human rights.
Next time they should just refuse to take in the international fugitive and let him be arrested on the spot. Then nobody will say they have pure contempt for human rights.
Obama suspended habeas corpus[1], extending the Bush-era abductions that were found to be unconstitutional. There hasn't been a US government that respects due process and human rights in a long time.
This whole wikileaks debacle has really shaken my faith in comment quality on HN. Gone are the well informed insightful comments that give you a unique insight into the topic matter, and in with knee jerk comments that appeal to HN's overall political direction.
I don't want to dive into the comments section to have my opinion reinforced by the chorus, I want to be challenged and maybe have my opinion changed in an intellectual way; and it just doesn't feel like this site is good for that anymore.
Not the first time the US has tried to enforce computer laws in regard to password hashes. The infamous case of AACS encryption key controversy and 09 F9 showed a lot of people willing to help with hacking into computer system, and the reaction from the legal system.
> I want to be challenged and maybe have my opinion changed in an intellectual way
be the change you want to see in the world! begin by not selectively ignoring the false allegations that brought him disrepute. Then you can gain some "insight" from the concept that the US could level much more serious charges against him after he lands on US soil from the relatively minor "hacking" charge. From there you can challenge yourself to respect the temerity required to expose war crimes committed by the most powerful nation in the world. You can do it; my faith in you isn't as easily shaken!
Individuals being allowed to claim asylum in an embassy building, which is normally a workplace with the lowered expectation of privacy thereto, is really exceptional. In fact, how many other examples even are there?
It would be amazing if people could devote a tiny fraction of the effort spent on Assange to some of the hundreds of thousands of other asylum seekers who are wrongly deported, held indefinitely, have their possessions confiscated, have their children removed from them, etc.
If we can't even hold up our principals and defend them in a case as big and public as Assange then there's no hope for the thousands of relative nobodies you're referring to.
There were actually many commentators on HN at one time claiming the US doesn't want Assange and the whole thing is made up by 'paranoid Assange supporters'. We now know that not only did they want him, they want all his stuff and are going to go to any underhanded length to get it.
What is the value of dissent and all the prestensions around democracy and human rights when people are being openly persecuted, it seems only dissent in non western countries is valid at which point europe, the free press, ngos and academics will line up with drums and megaphones to lecture everyone on the importance of 'freedom, democracy and dissent'. This is a fall and complete loss of moral highground to continue these kind of charades in future.
What message does this persecution and demonization of Assange, Manning and Snowden send to future dissentors? This virtually guarantees that even those with the tremendous courage that it takes to stand up to power may need to think twice as they are simply not safe in democractic regimes and the law and process will be used against them while the public are indifferent and others cheer on.
>it seems only dissent in non western countries is valid at which point europe, the free press, ngos and academics will line up with drums and megaphones to lecture everyone on the importance of 'freedom, democracy and dissent'
I just want to point out that this is really about the UK here, since this is where this is happening, and the UK really isn't like the rest of Europe at all, something they made quite clear when they voted for Brexit.
That's BS: the British people are the ones who elect those British politicians "who want to jump into bed with the US". If the people really didn't like this, they'd vote differently.
And unlike here in the US where the Presidential race is so important and that position has excessive power compared to the legislative branch, yet is determined with an archaic method that lately awards the post to someone who didn't win the popular election, in Britain there's multiple parties sharing power (I guess you guys have approval voting?), and the PM is elected from the party in Parliament with the most seats. I really don't think you can make a valid claim that the politicians don't represent the people.
And finally, with Brexit, that was voted for with a popular referendum, and a (narrow) majority chose to leave.
The people of Britain are getting the government they deserve, and that they voted for.
Julian better lawyer up with some US lawyers soon. International law and treaty violations are ignored in US courts. See,
Kerr v Illinois (1870?)
US v. Machain
US v. Noriega, etc etc etc
see how you can start making a good daily living incomes profits from virta stock trading http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php. without risk and 100% profits making guarantee.
This how virta stock trading work, You buy your virta stock from this modern company at the current market price and You will receive the next sales price you will use to sell your virta stock to make your instant profit.
Once the virta stock market price rise up to meet your next selling sales price, you will sell your virta stock and make your instant profit. No RISK TRADING.
You can withdraw your profit daily from a minimum of $1 and above.
THE BUYING AND THE SELLING OF A VIRTA STOCK IS 100% PROFIT MAKING GUARANTEE
WITHOUT RISK
Virta stock trading does not involve risk trading where traders need to trade with either to loss or gain.
All you do is to sell your virta stock and make your instant profits.
I make a good daily profits incomes from the buying and the selling of virta stock as my extra source of incomes to my bitcoin wallet every week.
I recommend this trading platform to every one.
Visit and register with the company here website http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php to start earning your steady daily and weekly income profit to your bitcoin wallet now.
They follow the narrative that the reason for Assange being handed over to GB is not cleaning up after his cat. This was brought up by Ecuador. You can decide for yourself which of these explanations you think is most likely:
- Ecuador wanted an IMF loan (and got it after handing over Assange)
- Wikileaks leaked documents about corruption of Ecuadors president
- Assange didn't clean up after his cat and that offended his hosts
All options have been brought up at one time or another. Or maybe it's something else. For lack of mind reading we'll never really know. At least not until Wikileaks provides documents about that too.
It’s amazing to me that leaking the tax return data for a sitting president is “journalism”, even without any evidence of a crime. Yet Wikileaks is considered criminal for exposing actual crimes to the US public?
I know he published U.S. government secrets (CIA files, that Iraq military video, etc). But what U.S. government crimes did he expose?
I think Assange is mostly a sleazy guy who allowed himself to be a tool for Russia in 2016. But I still think he should be protected from U.S. charges by the First Amendment, regardless of whatever minor "assistance" he provided to Chelsea Manning.
Snowden on the other hand is a hero that acted perfectly ethically and exposed clearly criminal violations of the U.S. Fourth Amendment. He should be protected as a whistleblower.
I referenced that video so I'm clearly aware of it.
Assange putting "murder" in the title doesn't actually make it illegal homocide. That's not how any legal system works.
IMHO that incident is unfortunate because some of those people were innocent, and it is legally questionable, but there's also a strong argument that it was legal. A very far cry from exposing something clearly illegal like the My Lai Massacre or Abu Ghraib torture.
So all he's done is expose one legally questionable incident from 2007 by a single military unit during the Iraq war? I suppose I'm not forgetting anything then.
> Mark Taylor, an international law expert and a director at the Fafo Institute for International Studies in Norway, told Al Jazeera "there's a case to be made that a war crime may have been committed." He added, "I think what this video shows is really a case that challenges whether the laws of war are strict enough."
You're free to argue that the laws of war should be stricter. But even if they were changed, it wouldn't retroactively make this incident illegal. It may or may not have been legal (i.e. it's legally questionable), whether you like or agree with the actions is a separate issue.
Contrast this incident with the case of that Navy SEAL murdering a POW. That's not legally questionable, that's very clearly illegal.
No, it's much more complex than that. Some of the men were very clearly armed, which anyone who watches the video can see for themselves. Even Assange acknowledged this fact.
The most legally questionable part (I believe) is firing on the van that was evacuating wounded people. The best ethical defense to that attack was that they didn't know children were in there and the driver is primarily to blame for what happened to them.
But even if it was most likely an ethically wrong decision, that doesn't make it automatically illegal.
Killing first-responders is a war crime not a "questionable incident", regardless of their conduct while killing innocent civilians. You're also implying that this is the only case where something like this happened. It's only the only one we know about.
In addition, the Iraqi and Afghan war logs showed evidence of massive underreporting of civilian casualties and cases of friendly-fire. Cases of DoD contractors hiring child prostitutes. Cases of soldiers firing into enemy combatants that were surrendering. Handing prisoners over to Iraqi custody even though they knew they would likely be tortured. Lack of investigation into reports of abuse, torture, rape by Iraqi police. And so on.
Your characterization of the incident could simply be wrong, legally speaking. Were those first responders, or merely enemy combatants helping their fellow enemy combatants escape? Are soldiers required to let wounded enemies escape? What if they're not in uniform? What if innocents would die?
It's very possible that it was completely legal under the international rules of war (Geneva Conventions, etc), whether or not you or I like what happened.
And I'm well aware that many other unfortunate and illegal things happened during the Iraq War. I referenced Abu Grahib. But the topic here was scoped to U.S. gov crimes exposed by Assange.
Edit: I did actually write "questionable incident" and that's what I meant there, my mistake.
I (the GP) actually agree with you. The point in making my distinction wasn't that I think one is criminal and one is not. I think they're both criminal, however there's clearly a political angle being played in both.
Are we talking about any crimes, or just crimes that would also be illegal in the US?
If we are just talking any crime, planting spying equipment in the UN building is illegal. The building is not international water where no law applies. Diplomatic immunity make it hard to prosecute, but it is still a crime.
If we are only talking about crime that is also a crime in the US then Employees of DynCorp, a US government contractor funded by U.S. tax dollars in Afghanistan paid for the services of underage "dancing boys". Child prostitution is a crime in the US. To the degree that US diplomats was aware of the situation and did not act they are complicit in the crime by continuing providing the funds for it.
There are multiple companies like Boeing, MasterCard, Visa, Monsanto where US diplomats and US politicians gave directly support during international deals. It is unclear how much government employees can go in and directly support a company, especially those that also donate a lot of money to political campaigns.
> But I still think he should be protected from U.S. charges by the First Amendment, regardless of whatever minor "assistance" he provided to Chelsea Manning.
Did you read the indictment? Do you honestly believe Assange supplying Manning with a live Linux distro, getting him to dump the password hash of the administrator account of a DoD server with said distro, and then attempting to brute force it after Manning supplied him the hash minor? Curious.
I think those are minor, yes. None of that is actually hacking. That kind of assistance is available to anyone with access to a search engine. Live Linux distros are freely available to anyone, they don't have to be "supplied". Assange failed to crack the password so that was just an embarrassing attempt at providing assistance.
Knowingly providing assistance to a crime is illegal, I'm not arguing that it's not. Just that in these kinds of cases it should be protected. Assisting someone in photocopying classified documents is illegal too, but should also be protected.
If Assange had ssh'd into a server and started running exploits I'd say he certainly crossed the line from journalist to hacker. His assistance may have pushed the boundaries of what is journalistic but I'd still err on the side of protecting him rather than risk diminishing the First Amendment.
At the end of the day, it was Manning that did the hacking and copying of data. Without her actions, there would have been no crime at all.
From how I read the indictment, Manning had finished dumping what she could with her level of access and then Assange urged her to do more. Then Assange provided the live Linux Distro and the process for dumping the admin password hash. Manning then supplied the hash to Assange who then began to attempt to brute force it.
I don't believe these sort of cases should be protected when they reach that level. I do believe that up until the point Assange started actively assisting Manning in compromising DoD systems from the level of access Manning had was where he crossed the line. If he would have just taken the data Manning provided at her level of access that imo is journalism. Attempting to brute force password hashes to give you admin access to DoD systems, that's a computer crime and should be treated as such.
Evidence that is turned over to law enforcement by a non-governmental entity may be used at trial. This is called the "silver platter" doctrine. So, your roommate went into your locked room and gave police the kilo of cocaine and firearm you always keep on the nightstand. Tough luck. The police are prohibited from directing private individuals to seize evidence that could not otherwise be seized. Another problem is that correspondence between Assange and his defense team--in other words, his defense--is contained in these materials. Giving the prosecutor access to this material must not be analyzed solely under a 4th Amendment search and seizure analysis, but under a 5th Amendment right to counsel analysis. The silver platter doctrine would not apply to a 5th Amendment analysis.
Parenthetically, cops and journalists are two professions that go undercover. Both lie in order to maintain the act. I have read multiple comments about how Assange tried to help Manning, e.g., that Assange tried to break encryption but failed. But no one knows this. It may very well be that Assange told Manning that he did these things, but did not for any number of reasons, not the least of which would be to keep Manning invested in looking for more material. There is no proof--though there may be in these seized materials--that Assange did anything of the sort. Journalists lie to their sources all the time.
Also, could someone explain why Manning simply didn't leave the country upon being released from jail? There are no criminal charges against Manning--there is merely a civil subpoena which Manning is resisting. He was under no obligation to remain in the United States.
> She was under no obligation to remain in the United States.
It's quite difficult to immigrate somewhere else when you're a convicted criminal; most places will bin your application immediately. Claiming asylum would also have made returning to the US impossible. Perhaps Manning wanted to see her family?
131 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 225 ms ] thread1- https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/iceland-a-nexus-...
Your link doesn't say anything about "framing" anyone.
>In addition, “A young online activist, Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson (known as Siggi), told a closed session of Iceland’s Parliament this year that he had been cooperating with United States agents investigating WikiLeaks at the time of the FBI’s visit in 2011,” the New York Times wrote.
>According to former Wikileaks member Birgitta Jonsdottir, who is now a member of Iceland's Parliament, Thordarson had been going back and forth visiting Assange in England, where Assange had been under house arrest at the time, and during that time the FBI tried to get Thordarson to wear a wire. Some fellow activists suggested that Thordarson had worked as a double agent for Assange in this capacity, but ultimately, the US investigators' presence left a mark on the Wikileaks members back in Iceland.
The FBI conducting an investigation and the FBI "framing" someone aren't comparable accusations, since one is lawful while the other is unlawful.
Linking that as proof that the FBI intended to "frame" anyone is a non-starter, it simply doesn't say that.
According to the article, the FBI lied to the Icelandic government in order to do its "investigation" (of what crime?), so I'm not sure "lawful" describes this activity.
With oil prices so low the country is unable to pay the loans and in need of refinancing. The new president has tried to bring the country back into the western sphere of influence by going back to the world bank / IMF (one of those or a similar western financial institution.
Not asked about : What the previous president said was the real reason - wikileaks' leaked evidence of Moreno's corruption : https://twitter.com/mashirafael/status/1116386840502775809?l...
I made a complaint to the BBC about not asking about this somewhat critical fact and Liam Reynolds of the BBC replied that they were "fair and balanced" because they considered both accusations that he didn't clean up after his cat and the accusations that he was spying. So there's that.
I bet everyone is kicking themselves for not trying it years ago, coming up with elaborate accusations when all they needed to say is that he deserves it because he's a grumpy slob.
Honestly, if they came out and said Assange was a slob, I'd believe it. Isolation and depression go hand in hand.
But to claim he was smearing poop on the walls when he knows Ecuador wants him out, it just screams 'lies and propaganda'
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Journalists don't simply parrot their sources, they use discretion in determining what is appropriate to release.
There was also the documents related to the DNC aide who was murdered, all of which were demonstrated to be forgeries.
And that's just the US political stuff...
> WikiLeaks has, for instance, revealed Social Security numbers, medical information, credit card numbers and details of suicide attempts.
I can't imagine most of this information is necessary in "uncovering government and corporate secrets" and quite irresponsible of Wikileaks.
What's wrong with that approach is that everyone else got his/her private communications released publicly even if they didn't do anything wrong in particular. They were in a now-public database that exposed dirt on someone else, as a collateral damage. Wikileaks hoped that people would find more dirt from looking at the entire datasets, but what we got instead was conspiracy theories (like Pizzagate).
This is the opposite of the Panama/Paradise Papers approach, that only publishes the incriminating parts of the dataset, while guarding everyone else who happened to be a part of the same database.
I agree with the goal of Wikileaks, but not their approach.
Publishing a bunch of documents does you get does not make you accessory to theft. Helping steal them does.
Also, not necessarily saying he's a journalist, but there's a reason journalist have special protections in many countries. Exposing corruption or the failings of powerful people is always risky, and I'm glad some people decide to do it.
That is actually not a good sign. Anyone with a sufficiently long track record is going to make some mistakes because no one is perfect. If you refuse to issue any retractions or updates, what that really means is that you refuse to admit that you make mistakes.
or, use the Lady Gaga CD case?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Lamo
But the moment they've had enough they're a "puppet government" to some people?
But also, a reminder: Conspiracy theories have gotten a terrible name recently via all the batshit insane ones. Some of them turned out to be true.
It's also the previous president who gave assange asylum saying this: https://twitter.com/mashirafael/status/1116386840502775809
This is the first time I’ve heard this accusation. Do you have any basis for this claim?
If you want to redefine what makes a journalist, then we have to have another discussion.
Edited: Sorry. Also have a serious problem with the accusation that editors on whole are compromised. They’re some of the most hard-nosed people I know—To a fault—And to my professional annoyance...
However, there's a distinction between journalist and professional journalist. He worked with professional journalists at various points in his life, that's for sure.
That's a pretty naive view of the justice system. I don't think it was better in the past at all.
I'm older than Assange is, and I can tell you that is laughably wrong. I have grown up with the idea that if The Man(tm) wants to stick you with something, they'll find something that will stick, and I'm rarely disappointed. I'd bet a paycheck that one could find examples going back a thousand years. I know the phrase "don't poke the bear" has been around a lot longer than either Assange or I.
[1] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1127706444185448449
The lawyer is doing his job, and is mainly referring to the unprecedented case of Ecuador just handing over personal possessions to the US -- a country that is trying to extradite him on the most tenuous of claims.
> There's no way that having security cameras in your own embassy is an "illicit operation"
If they're focused on and used for recording an individual granted asylum, how can that possibly be compatible with even the vaguest principles of privacy?
Was that the purpose? Were there no security cameras before? If this was a new installation, was he aware of it? Did the placement of the new cameras take privacy into consideration (e.g. avoiding sleeping quarters, toilets, etc.)?
we will never know what exactly happened on this one. that is for sure.
For what it's worth there were also allegations of microphones being used to record private conversations.
The release of footage from the embassy to the international media seemed a particularly bizarre way to announce to the international community that your government has pure contempt for human rights.
This government does appear to have pure contempt for due process and human rights.
Just like the US.
[1]: https://www.salon.com/2010/05/21/bagram_6/
This is absolutely something that has been almost consistent amongst US leaders going back as far as I can remember.
Human rights and due process seem to be a stick with which to (selectively) beat other nations. They don't apply to the US or its cronies.
The only thing he's being extradited for is trying to hack into US gov computer systems, something which he literally admitted to in a chat message with Manning. https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-arrest-indictment...
This whole wikileaks debacle has really shaken my faith in comment quality on HN. Gone are the well informed insightful comments that give you a unique insight into the topic matter, and in with knee jerk comments that appeal to HN's overall political direction.
I don't want to dive into the comments section to have my opinion reinforced by the chorus, I want to be challenged and maybe have my opinion changed in an intellectual way; and it just doesn't feel like this site is good for that anymore.
be the change you want to see in the world! begin by not selectively ignoring the false allegations that brought him disrepute. Then you can gain some "insight" from the concept that the US could level much more serious charges against him after he lands on US soil from the relatively minor "hacking" charge. From there you can challenge yourself to respect the temerity required to expose war crimes committed by the most powerful nation in the world. You can do it; my faith in you isn't as easily shaken!
It sounds like an open and shut case then.
So why does the US want his possessions? The US should have no interest in his possessions if they are genuinely not on a fishing expedition.
Why is Chelsea Manning's testimony required? Why is she back in prison? It seems an open and shut case.
Maybe the media are telling you it's not a fishing expedition, but it sure looks like one.
Or investigative journalism in general, often in dangerous conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Caruana_Galizia
What is the value of dissent and all the prestensions around democracy and human rights when people are being openly persecuted, it seems only dissent in non western countries is valid at which point europe, the free press, ngos and academics will line up with drums and megaphones to lecture everyone on the importance of 'freedom, democracy and dissent'. This is a fall and complete loss of moral highground to continue these kind of charades in future.
What message does this persecution and demonization of Assange, Manning and Snowden send to future dissentors? This virtually guarantees that even those with the tremendous courage that it takes to stand up to power may need to think twice as they are simply not safe in democractic regimes and the law and process will be used against them while the public are indifferent and others cheer on.
I just want to point out that this is really about the UK here, since this is where this is happening, and the UK really isn't like the rest of Europe at all, something they made quite clear when they voted for Brexit.
It is only British politicians who want to jump into bed with the US at every available opportunity. Not because they are British, but despite it.
And unlike here in the US where the Presidential race is so important and that position has excessive power compared to the legislative branch, yet is determined with an archaic method that lately awards the post to someone who didn't win the popular election, in Britain there's multiple parties sharing power (I guess you guys have approval voting?), and the PM is elected from the party in Parliament with the most seats. I really don't think you can make a valid claim that the politicians don't represent the people.
And finally, with Brexit, that was voted for with a popular referendum, and a (narrow) majority chose to leave.
The people of Britain are getting the government they deserve, and that they voted for.
see how you can start making a good daily living incomes profits from virta stock trading http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php. without risk and 100% profits making guarantee.
This how virta stock trading work, You buy your virta stock from this modern company at the current market price and You will receive the next sales price you will use to sell your virta stock to make your instant profit.
Once the virta stock market price rise up to meet your next selling sales price, you will sell your virta stock and make your instant profit. No RISK TRADING.
You can withdraw your profit daily from a minimum of $1 and above.
THE BUYING AND THE SELLING OF A VIRTA STOCK IS 100% PROFIT MAKING GUARANTEE WITHOUT RISK
Virta stock trading does not involve risk trading where traders need to trade with either to loss or gain.
All you do is to sell your virta stock and make your instant profits.
I make a good daily profits incomes from the buying and the selling of virta stock as my extra source of incomes to my bitcoin wallet every week.
I recommend this trading platform to every one.
Visit and register with the company here website http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php to start earning your steady daily and weekly income profit to your bitcoin wallet now.
What are you trying to convey?
- Ecuador wanted an IMF loan (and got it after handing over Assange)
- Wikileaks leaked documents about corruption of Ecuadors president
- Assange didn't clean up after his cat and that offended his hosts
All options have been brought up at one time or another. Or maybe it's something else. For lack of mind reading we'll never really know. At least not until Wikileaks provides documents about that too.
I think Assange is mostly a sleazy guy who allowed himself to be a tool for Russia in 2016. But I still think he should be protected from U.S. charges by the First Amendment, regardless of whatever minor "assistance" he provided to Chelsea Manning.
Snowden on the other hand is a hero that acted perfectly ethically and exposed clearly criminal violations of the U.S. Fourth Amendment. He should be protected as a whistleblower.
Google, "Collateral Murder"
You're welcome.
Assange putting "murder" in the title doesn't actually make it illegal homocide. That's not how any legal system works.
IMHO that incident is unfortunate because some of those people were innocent, and it is legally questionable, but there's also a strong argument that it was legal. A very far cry from exposing something clearly illegal like the My Lai Massacre or Abu Ghraib torture.
So all he's done is expose one legally questionable incident from 2007 by a single military unit during the Iraq war? I suppose I'm not forgetting anything then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...
You're free to argue that the laws of war should be stricter. But even if they were changed, it wouldn't retroactively make this incident illegal. It may or may not have been legal (i.e. it's legally questionable), whether you like or agree with the actions is a separate issue.
Contrast this incident with the case of that Navy SEAL murdering a POW. That's not legally questionable, that's very clearly illegal.
Watching the video is enough to dispel that.
The most legally questionable part (I believe) is firing on the van that was evacuating wounded people. The best ethical defense to that attack was that they didn't know children were in there and the driver is primarily to blame for what happened to them.
But even if it was most likely an ethically wrong decision, that doesn't make it automatically illegal.
And all these arguments are spurious IMO. Collateral Murder exposed what was being done secretly overseas in US citizens' name.
If it wasn't illegal then there should be no problem showing their people exactly what their war budget is paying for.
Doesn't the video show a group of gunmen who the camera guy was following around?
In addition, the Iraqi and Afghan war logs showed evidence of massive underreporting of civilian casualties and cases of friendly-fire. Cases of DoD contractors hiring child prostitutes. Cases of soldiers firing into enemy combatants that were surrendering. Handing prisoners over to Iraqi custody even though they knew they would likely be tortured. Lack of investigation into reports of abuse, torture, rape by Iraqi police. And so on.
It's very possible that it was completely legal under the international rules of war (Geneva Conventions, etc), whether or not you or I like what happened.
And I'm well aware that many other unfortunate and illegal things happened during the Iraq War. I referenced Abu Grahib. But the topic here was scoped to U.S. gov crimes exposed by Assange.
Edit: I did actually write "questionable incident" and that's what I meant there, my mistake.
If we are just talking any crime, planting spying equipment in the UN building is illegal. The building is not international water where no law applies. Diplomatic immunity make it hard to prosecute, but it is still a crime.
If we are only talking about crime that is also a crime in the US then Employees of DynCorp, a US government contractor funded by U.S. tax dollars in Afghanistan paid for the services of underage "dancing boys". Child prostitution is a crime in the US. To the degree that US diplomats was aware of the situation and did not act they are complicit in the crime by continuing providing the funds for it.
There are multiple companies like Boeing, MasterCard, Visa, Monsanto where US diplomats and US politicians gave directly support during international deals. It is unclear how much government employees can go in and directly support a company, especially those that also donate a lot of money to political campaigns.
Did you read the indictment? Do you honestly believe Assange supplying Manning with a live Linux distro, getting him to dump the password hash of the administrator account of a DoD server with said distro, and then attempting to brute force it after Manning supplied him the hash minor? Curious.
Knowingly providing assistance to a crime is illegal, I'm not arguing that it's not. Just that in these kinds of cases it should be protected. Assisting someone in photocopying classified documents is illegal too, but should also be protected.
If Assange had ssh'd into a server and started running exploits I'd say he certainly crossed the line from journalist to hacker. His assistance may have pushed the boundaries of what is journalistic but I'd still err on the side of protecting him rather than risk diminishing the First Amendment.
At the end of the day, it was Manning that did the hacking and copying of data. Without her actions, there would have been no crime at all.
I don't believe these sort of cases should be protected when they reach that level. I do believe that up until the point Assange started actively assisting Manning in compromising DoD systems from the level of access Manning had was where he crossed the line. If he would have just taken the data Manning provided at her level of access that imo is journalism. Attempting to brute force password hashes to give you admin access to DoD systems, that's a computer crime and should be treated as such.
Parenthetically, cops and journalists are two professions that go undercover. Both lie in order to maintain the act. I have read multiple comments about how Assange tried to help Manning, e.g., that Assange tried to break encryption but failed. But no one knows this. It may very well be that Assange told Manning that he did these things, but did not for any number of reasons, not the least of which would be to keep Manning invested in looking for more material. There is no proof--though there may be in these seized materials--that Assange did anything of the sort. Journalists lie to their sources all the time.
Also, could someone explain why Manning simply didn't leave the country upon being released from jail? There are no criminal charges against Manning--there is merely a civil subpoena which Manning is resisting. He was under no obligation to remain in the United States.
It's quite difficult to immigrate somewhere else when you're a convicted criminal; most places will bin your application immediately. Claiming asylum would also have made returning to the US impossible. Perhaps Manning wanted to see her family?
Well this got thrown off the top page in a hurry.
When will the average HN reader fully appreciate the lengths their Western government will go to propagandize their population.