Obviously the judge will be “impartial” and not recuse himself. Only bad countries don’t have justice like China and Russia according to the main stream media.
Is there a word to describe the effect of someone ending a comment in a phrase (in this case “according to the [mainstream] media”) that instantly invalidates the rest of the argument to a reader?
Those are all examples of Post Judgment IMO, I don't agree with you conflating the last two phrases with using the n-word as they are very different.
How do You feel about "Lets go Brandon"? oops did I just destroy my earlier argument?
"Let's go Brandon" is simply puerile, the US has become so polarized that the political discourse has degraded to bad cockney rhyming slang. It's such proof of bad faith that I don't even have time for such people.
Main stream media are the media who used Assange's stories when it became clear they couldn't ignore them; then helped to smear him while ignoring his torture and a long list of disproportionate and illegal actions against him.
You can call them scumbag media, billionaire media, or tool of the warmongers media; but pre-judging people who use the term "main stream media" means you have chosen the side of the opulent oppressor, and willingly put up a wall of ignorance for yourself. Seems dumb, especially on a thread discussing this story of all stories.
"main stream media" is also a radical right calling card. There are nothing good that comes out of using MSM and assorted catch phrases.
Big fan of Chomsky, but his usage of the term mainstream media is not what that term has been co-opted to mean by some of the various forces he has, and is, warning us about.
Mainstream media is the media that is mainstream. I don't give a flying fuck if the GOP decide it means only corporate "left" media.
'Socialism', 'liberal', 'terrorist', 'torture', etc... Allowing brainwashed loons and their puppeteers to decide what words mean is a mug's game, and I suggest you stop playing.
Mainstream media was a thing way before it being co-opted by the far-right. And I really dislike the idea of having to update my vocabulary because a pack of morons decided to abuse the term.
I bet there is one in German, they always have words for interesting things like that.
To be fair, I think there should also be a word to describe the effect of someone beginning a phrase that invalidates the rest of their argument..eg "According to CNN..."
*Edit* Sorry about the pronouns.
Here is a German phrase that is close to what is needed.
Most voices in support of Assange seem to come from people with strong conviction that he is clearly a good guy (unsurprisingly). I don’t really have an opinion.
Could someone provide a more impassioned / balanced list of pros and cons?
From my vague point of view, I get that he is sort of a journalist (so should be protected), but also the stuff he leaked did go quite far, like borderline-espionage scale (or is that unfair?). States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens (but not long term, clearly). Is much known about his associates, funding sources? If I were an enemy of the USA I’d probably quite like Assange (not that this on its own makes Assange himself a bad guy).
Probably "impassionate". (Which has been displaced in modern usage by "dispassionate", but if you learned your English from books you're likely to still use.)
In summary, it's as you say. Wikileaks has released a tonne of sensitive material which has often made the US look bad and revealed war crimes. The US wants to punish Assange as the leader of Wikileaks to deter others from doing the same.
Most journalists and lawyers (although not all) believe that Wikileaks' activity is journalistic, and therefore that Assange can't be prosecuted for this activity. So the US is trying to charge him for other things, e.g. for helping others hack.
Whether other states have been involved in leaking info to Wikileaks... who knows? It's likely, because, well, why wouldn't they? However no one has suggested the info released by Wikileaks is false.
As far as money, I believe most of the Wikileaks funds have come from public donations and often their legal advice is paid for by friends or pro bono. So I don't think there's anything nefarious going on there.
What has been clear is that the US will go to extreme lengths to get him into a US jail, from discussions about rendition, assassination, and faking evidence (e.g. with a key witness in this trial), to significant political pressure on allies and other states to cooperate with them on this. He is an 'enemy of the state' in their eyes.
> What has been clear is that the US will go to extreme lengths to get him into a US jail, from discussions about rendition, assassination, and faking evidence (e.g. with a key witness in this trial), to significant political pressure on allies and other states to cooperate with them on this.
Right, and that's kinda messed-up given the standards we place on modern democracies and ourselves.
Given the revelations, where are the consequences for those involved? How can we effect the consequences we want?
"Right, and that's kinda messed-up given the standards we place on modern democracies and ourselves."
And what standards would those be? US has never been "the good guy". They strike with impunity in disregard of collateral damage or decency, as long as domestic opinion can be kept in check.
Never mistake an actor with strong realpolitik leverage to an universal benefactor.
> Wikileaks has released a tonne of sensitive material which has often made the US look bad and revealed war crimes. The US wants to punish Assange as the leader of Wikileaks to deter others from doing the same
they are already making themselves look like fools when they are being so desperate in an attempt to punish a leaker
only makes me wonder more what other skeletons they hide in their closet?
> believe that Wikileaks' activity is journalistic,
Anyone claiming Wikileaks wasn't journalism is of the same scum of the earth that claim PV isn't journalism. It's disgusting.
The whole idea that journalism is an identity is fucks my asinine. You practice journalism, it's an act. You don't need any belief, there is an objective reality and verifiable acts that define whether journalism has taken place.
> States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens
Do they? Perhaps this is the crux of the matter, as I would say that a democracy has no reason to keep anything secret against the best interests of its citizens. It may have some operational need of secrecy for things that are in the interest of its citizens (i.e. it's in my interest that nuclear launch codes are kept secret) or can balance these with other rights and responsibilities (i.e. the right for privacy of its officers or the duty of care in not disclosing the dispositions of its forces in a war).
Not to mention, the secret that they wanted kept that started it all wasn't about "special secret things that should be secret". Jump out of the platonics debate, reality's truth is just ugly.
Some dodgy businessman might be a crook and criminal (no reference to Assange), but also a vital intelligence asset.
It might be in the immediate interest of citizens to know that, and have the guy tried, but not so in the *long term. I would expect a competent intelligence service to keep the guy safe and his misdeeds under cover.
Of course that can go badly wrong, I just mean, a priori, there may be very good reasons to keep secrets from your own people. But then this is why intelligence services need civilian supervision, just like armed forces do.
This is not about how good or bad he is; it's about how the wheels of justice are continually being perverted by both the USA and the UK legal system (Scottish and British) in order to secure his extradition.
A quick high-level list:
- Bugging his conversations with his lawyers (the people involved have been charged in Spain and a trial is ongoing there, and some American nationals added to the Interpol list).
- Preventing an expert witness from testifying in Spain about this bugging by arresting and convicting the expert on laughably bad evidence so that he can't travel to Spain.
- Holding the accused in continual isolation for years now in one of the most brutal prisons in the UK (hell hole doesn't even begin to describe it).
- Holding his hearings in a remote location so as to dissuade people from attending.
- Barring most of the people who do try to attend, including human rights observers (almost unheard of in non-dictatorships, and a first for non-violent offenders).
- Ensuring that the accused cannot hear the proceedings or talk effectively with his lawyers by locking him in a glass box (normally only used for extremely violent offenders).
- Preventing the accused access to his lawyers outside of the courtroom (this alone is enough to declare a mistrial).
- Allowing the USA to change the indictment and submit different evidence months into the proceedings after it became clear they couldn't win, and then giving the defence a single day to prepare (hundreds, possibly thousands of pages).
- Allowing the USA team to flout court proceedings, and then preventing the defence from doing what they are allowed by law to do, preventing expert defence witnesses saying it will take too long, cutting cross examinations short, denying admission of evidence after weak, sometimes bizarre USA objections, etc.
Although the last judge was terrible in many ways, she did block the extradition on the grounds of suicide risk (personally, I think she just didn't have the stomach to be the one to sign him over). What they need now is a sympathetic judge to overrule this one point and disallow any arguments to the other points. That's what this latest chapter is about.
No, he's being tried for espionage and hacking primarily (the actual indictment list is pretty long). The rape investigation was in Sweden, and has long since been dropped.
> Most voices in support of Assange seem to come from people with strong conviction that he is clearly a good guy (unsurprisingly). I don’t really have an opinion.
Aside from already expressing your opinion.. you then continue to give your opinion in much more detail.
You lack even the basic understanding of what has been done to him yet you've somehow formed this fully fledged opinion on the subject?
The unspoken assumption behind this question is that any actor in our society needs to be morally or personally exemplary for their work to have value. It's a modern version of Donatism. Donatists were a group of Christians in the fourth century. Their core tenet was that priests need to be ‘faultless’ for their prayers and their sacraments to be valid
It's often faulty son-of-the-bitch that makes a lasting positive mark on society.
----
About Assange.
Assange started a hugely positive movement with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks continues to be a positive force.
The problem with WikiLeaks under Assange was that he could not keep it impersonal under stress. Assange allowed himself and WikiLeaks to be used as a tool. Then he adopted a conspiratory tone to everything. His supporters are now completely convinced that everyone in the government fulfilling their lawful orders is personally invested in an evil plot to get him.
Contrast Assange to Snowden. Snowden lives in Russia but is less a tool for Russians than Assange is. Snowden understands that people whose job is to get him, are not some evil cabal. Breaking the law for the good of the society is sometimes necessary. That does not mean that everyone on the opposite side is evil.
>From my vague point of view, I get that he is sort of a journalist (so should be protected), but also the stuff he leaked did go quite far, like borderline-espionage scale
So? When did exposing espionage become a bad thing?
>States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens
It's not about him, it's what this case tells us about us.
It's just not possible to believe the story western society tells to itself about itself, and it's a harsh realization. Also, that was a persons life and mostly we can just watch as selected the enemy of the empire gets destroyed.
If you grew up in the hacker-scene of the late 80ies early 90ies it might be easier to empathize with him than what is possible just reading the US/UK/SE documents claiming he is a rapey person that enjoys torturing cats.
I don't think he is either a hero nor a villain, but has the classic mentality of the hacker-scene (both useful but also highly toxic). Broken people (aren't we all?) who try to be larger-than-life figures.
The difference between Assange and the rest is he thought "sticking it to the man" is possible while not living in a safe place that supports his "work". Assange has been living this fantasy of a small good guy who can fight back because of his hacking skills and never grew up from the kid he was. Who hasn't tried to access *.mil domains in the late 80ies or hack a payphone for free international calls? At least everyone bragged about it. There are people still out there today claiming you can issue a "climb command"[0] to the CAN-bus of an aircraft via the infotainment system just so they are liked more on social media (same sad mentality).
His biggest flaw is not taking sides and thinking that he could get away with exposing US interests from US friendly territory. All of the wannabe independent citizen journalists who are successful must be backed by the intelligence community in the country they operate. Bellingcat is a good example because it paints the outfit as something that was bootstrapped by 1 guy without a job in his bedroom (Elliot Higgins) but Elliot has good friends in UK intelligence and Atlantic council. Belingcat does fantastic work but believe not for 1 second that they would be able to drop the intel that Assange did without getting retired quickly. You can not work in IC without choosing a side that you feed the info to and that you also rely on support. Assange thought he could live like a digital nomad traveling on his real passport while literally calling DoS asking to speak to H. Clinton and strongarm her.
His failure to chose a side meant life chose a side for him, by becoming the mouthpiece for Guccifer 2.0 (GRU). I do not think he decided to pick a side suddenly (RU), but that he ended up being a useful idiot that eventually had no choice but to double down. Both so that he isn't seen flip-flopping but also because FVEY already were out to get him. The sheer stupidity of doing all this from Europe and UK is hard to understand . If you upset your own Western government you better have a second passport from China or Russia and don't do it from that country. It's what activists who want to be martyrs do but not journalists or members of the IC. Assange thought he could play in all these camps which is why he will eventually get disappeared into the prison system after this farce of a trial. The biggest casualty other than Assange is the truth.
Also it anyone who who supported him has their own story about how they were hunted/harassed (Jacob Appelbaum, Ola Bini, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, ...)
[1] Australia today isn't a real country but just a propaganda mouthpiece for the US IMHO. Australia is where the most conservative idea that are too insane to be tested in the US get rolled out- check the AABill where the gov can show up demanding you implement a backdoor without being able to disclose it to your employer or end up behind bars. They even have a law now that let's LE plant evidence. There is a fantastic show called "underbelly" (the "Sopranos of Austriala") which does a great job showing how corrupt law enforcement is in Australia.
I am describing how it works today, not how I wish it to be. Assange made mistakes but he should not have disappeared into the UK prison system because a corrupt banana republic (Ecuador) elected a new leader. Austria should not have forced landing of a plane with Evo Morales onboard just to hunt Assange, yet Austria did. No country will protect you (he was not offered asylum in or other "democracies"). The left wing media (Guardian & Co) failed to support him.
No matter which country you look at if you intend to upset their power structure (or the structure of a powerful ally that you want to appease), you will not have rights. Even more so when you're not a citizen of that country.
This is all related to Edward Snowden the whistle blower, as far as funding goes, I believe KimDotCom was involved and the powers that be managed to crucify him already. I think if and when the US gets the opportunity to bring Assange to trial it will be in a closed court and the outcome will be already determined. Someone has to pay for exposing US government crimes.
PS Epstein didn't kill himself and where is the coverage for Ghislaine's trail? Is the story being buried because too many important men visited the infamous island? Shame the Johns!!!! #TimesUp #meToo
If I recall correctly, the thesis of wikileaks from their beginning was that leaks increase the cost and complexity to governments keeping their actions secret therefore providing a sort of forcing function to reduce both the number and scope of dishonorable actions carried out in secret.
Wikileaks is best understood as a force vector in a system. It's possible to have an opinion on the idea of leaking as a force for good. And that opinion could be conditional or even strong disagreement. The strength and direction of someone's opinion on that will determine how their opinion of Assange is further influenced. Influenced by the ancillary topics like sources of leaks, sources of funding, topics leaked about and editorial control exercised over what is released.
People's opinion on wikileaks in general can change after seeing who takes the "W"s and who takes the "L"s, and it's worthwhile to cultivate a feedback loop where your opinion of wikileaks is downstream from your opinion of leaking in general. Frankly, I don't care whether he is a good guy or a bad guy. I'm not having him around for Christmas, he's a force vector in a system. I have an opinion on that force vector.
It's worth also remembering that good/bad is different than legal/illegal, and that our standards for government includes the expectation of just due process even for those that are obviously monstrous criminals.
> Most voices in support of Assange seem to come from people with strong conviction that he is clearly a good guy (unsurprisingly).
That's not my perception at all. It seems to me that people support Assange because the US don't like people showing proof of their war crimes, so they want to make an example of him.
> States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens (but not long term, clearly).
I don't disagree, but that this has never been considered to bind those who are not citizens or residents of those states. Is there a state in existence today that does not maintain what intelligence apparatus it can afford, in order to learn the secrets of other states?
I have plenty of criticism of Assange. I mean, I had a very favourable view of him before the leaks, I feel the Collateral Murder video is very important, and I think it's important that governments can be held accountable for their crimes, so in those areas I'm on his side.
But I'm not so happy with his grand-standing, with the way he handled some of the data, with his attempts to work with Russia and Trump to influence US elections, or with how he handled those Swedish rape allegations.
There is plenty of criticism for everybody here. But the biggest issue is still the core issue: does the US have the right to commit war crimes, and does it have the right to persecute anyone who tries to publicise those crimes?
This is rather a broader problem in the UK: the country is run by an extremely small group of people who all know each other and who have the capacity to appoint each other to positions of power, all the while getting sympathetic coverage from the press, who they also crossover with.
(I wonder why Dame Cressida Rose Dick DBE QPM won't investigate the House of Lords cash-for-peerages scandal? https://news.sky.com/story/met-police-urged-to-launch-cash-f... - but why do we have a permanent unelected legislature anyway? That has to be a corruption magnet)
I do find the hyperfocus on Assange rather weird though.
The status quo was a not too different in the US. Look at legacy families like the Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, etc. Breaking into politics requires embracing some seriously intense nepotism.
yeah the world is already looking at it unfavorably as corrupt and unjust, generally when the view starts out like that history doesn't do anything but double down.
But probably the judge doesn't care about the view of history.
If he does end up getting extradited to the US, he should hope he ends up in Kalifornia or NuYork and gets released with no bail like all the thieves and lunatics.
When are we going to get the diplomat's wife that murdered the kid near Mildenhall? UK should reject all extraditions to the US until that piece of work is in a UK prison.
// Edit
Further, we should stop all extraditions to the US until they stop the barbaric practice of capital punishment.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the US and UK are equals, rather than the actual master-poodle relationship. The UK had similar unequal treaties with Imperial China in the 19th Century, and now the boot is on the other foot.
I genuinely wonder if people in the US see countries like the UK, Australia, Germany, etc as being "partners" in some kind of relationship of equals? Whereas, from the other side of the telescope it genuinely feels like living in a vassal state "They say jump. We say 'how high?'"
There may be as yet undiscovered tribes in the midst of the Amazonian jungle who were surprised by this decision. But, in the UK, we all knew that, once the US "demanded" the UK would bend over and lube up... after the usual bit of judicial theatre, to make it all appear above board, of course.
> Duncan then flew to Ecuador to meet President Lenín Moreno in order to “say thank you” for handing over Assange. Duncan reported he gave Moreno “a beautiful porcelain plate from the Buckingham Palace gift shop.”
Guess I should stock up on gift shop trinkets more often, if they are so useful for securing favors.
81 comments
[ 1.4 ms ] story [ 166 ms ] threadI prejudge people who drop the n-word in casual conversation.
I prejudge people who use terms like "SJW" or "woke".
And, yes, I prejudge people who use "main stream media".
You can call them scumbag media, billionaire media, or tool of the warmongers media; but pre-judging people who use the term "main stream media" means you have chosen the side of the opulent oppressor, and willingly put up a wall of ignorance for yourself. Seems dumb, especially on a thread discussing this story of all stories.
https://chomsky.info/199710__/
Big fan of Chomsky, but his usage of the term mainstream media is not what that term has been co-opted to mean by some of the various forces he has, and is, warning us about.
'Socialism', 'liberal', 'terrorist', 'torture', etc... Allowing brainwashed loons and their puppeteers to decide what words mean is a mug's game, and I suggest you stop playing.
Your argument is "you don't know me", so I think we can end this chat there.
To be fair, I think there should also be a word to describe the effect of someone beginning a phrase that invalidates the rest of their argument..eg "According to CNN..."
*Edit* Sorry about the pronouns.
Here is a German phrase that is close to what is needed.
Backpfeifengesicht
Could someone provide a more impassioned / balanced list of pros and cons?
From my vague point of view, I get that he is sort of a journalist (so should be protected), but also the stuff he leaked did go quite far, like borderline-espionage scale (or is that unfair?). States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens (but not long term, clearly). Is much known about his associates, funding sources? If I were an enemy of the USA I’d probably quite like Assange (not that this on its own makes Assange himself a bad guy).
Could someone fill in the gaps ELI5?
What Assange is suffering pales against what happened in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib.
Nobody ever paid.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_priso...
Meaning that the event might or might not be isolated, but the chain of command is responsible for the mentality.
Most journalists and lawyers (although not all) believe that Wikileaks' activity is journalistic, and therefore that Assange can't be prosecuted for this activity. So the US is trying to charge him for other things, e.g. for helping others hack.
Whether other states have been involved in leaking info to Wikileaks... who knows? It's likely, because, well, why wouldn't they? However no one has suggested the info released by Wikileaks is false.
As far as money, I believe most of the Wikileaks funds have come from public donations and often their legal advice is paid for by friends or pro bono. So I don't think there's anything nefarious going on there.
What has been clear is that the US will go to extreme lengths to get him into a US jail, from discussions about rendition, assassination, and faking evidence (e.g. with a key witness in this trial), to significant political pressure on allies and other states to cooperate with them on this. He is an 'enemy of the state' in their eyes.
Right, and that's kinda messed-up given the standards we place on modern democracies and ourselves.
Given the revelations, where are the consequences for those involved? How can we effect the consequences we want?
And what standards would those be? US has never been "the good guy". They strike with impunity in disregard of collateral damage or decency, as long as domestic opinion can be kept in check.
Never mistake an actor with strong realpolitik leverage to an universal benefactor.
Wikileaks also went out of its way to share this information with regimes it had affinity to, like Lukashenka's Belarus.
https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/02/wikileaks-belarus-...
they are already making themselves look like fools when they are being so desperate in an attempt to punish a leaker
only makes me wonder more what other skeletons they hide in their closet?
Anyone claiming Wikileaks wasn't journalism is of the same scum of the earth that claim PV isn't journalism. It's disgusting.
The whole idea that journalism is an identity is fucks my asinine. You practice journalism, it's an act. You don't need any belief, there is an objective reality and verifiable acts that define whether journalism has taken place.
Do they? Perhaps this is the crux of the matter, as I would say that a democracy has no reason to keep anything secret against the best interests of its citizens. It may have some operational need of secrecy for things that are in the interest of its citizens (i.e. it's in my interest that nuclear launch codes are kept secret) or can balance these with other rights and responsibilities (i.e. the right for privacy of its officers or the duty of care in not disclosing the dispositions of its forces in a war).
It might be in the immediate interest of citizens to know that, and have the guy tried, but not so in the *long term. I would expect a competent intelligence service to keep the guy safe and his misdeeds under cover.
Of course that can go badly wrong, I just mean, a priori, there may be very good reasons to keep secrets from your own people. But then this is why intelligence services need civilian supervision, just like armed forces do.
A quick high-level list:
- Bugging his conversations with his lawyers (the people involved have been charged in Spain and a trial is ongoing there, and some American nationals added to the Interpol list).
- Preventing an expert witness from testifying in Spain about this bugging by arresting and convicting the expert on laughably bad evidence so that he can't travel to Spain.
- Holding the accused in continual isolation for years now in one of the most brutal prisons in the UK (hell hole doesn't even begin to describe it).
- Holding his hearings in a remote location so as to dissuade people from attending.
- Barring most of the people who do try to attend, including human rights observers (almost unheard of in non-dictatorships, and a first for non-violent offenders).
- Ensuring that the accused cannot hear the proceedings or talk effectively with his lawyers by locking him in a glass box (normally only used for extremely violent offenders).
- Preventing the accused access to his lawyers outside of the courtroom (this alone is enough to declare a mistrial).
- Allowing the USA to change the indictment and submit different evidence months into the proceedings after it became clear they couldn't win, and then giving the defence a single day to prepare (hundreds, possibly thousands of pages).
- Allowing the USA team to flout court proceedings, and then preventing the defence from doing what they are allowed by law to do, preventing expert defence witnesses saying it will take too long, cutting cross examinations short, denying admission of evidence after weak, sometimes bizarre USA objections, etc.
Although the last judge was terrible in many ways, she did block the extradition on the grounds of suicide risk (personally, I think she just didn't have the stomach to be the one to sign him over). What they need now is a sympathetic judge to overrule this one point and disallow any arguments to the other points. That's what this latest chapter is about.
EDIT: Nvm, even if he is being tried for espionage, this looks disproportionate
Aside from already expressing your opinion.. you then continue to give your opinion in much more detail.
You lack even the basic understanding of what has been done to him yet you've somehow formed this fully fledged opinion on the subject?
Your post reeks of CIA shill.
The unspoken assumption behind this question is that any actor in our society needs to be morally or personally exemplary for their work to have value. It's a modern version of Donatism. Donatists were a group of Christians in the fourth century. Their core tenet was that priests need to be ‘faultless’ for their prayers and their sacraments to be valid
It's often faulty son-of-the-bitch that makes a lasting positive mark on society.
----
About Assange.
Assange started a hugely positive movement with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks continues to be a positive force.
The problem with WikiLeaks under Assange was that he could not keep it impersonal under stress. Assange allowed himself and WikiLeaks to be used as a tool. Then he adopted a conspiratory tone to everything. His supporters are now completely convinced that everyone in the government fulfilling their lawful orders is personally invested in an evil plot to get him.
Contrast Assange to Snowden. Snowden lives in Russia but is less a tool for Russians than Assange is. Snowden understands that people whose job is to get him, are not some evil cabal. Breaking the law for the good of the society is sometimes necessary. That does not mean that everyone on the opposite side is evil.
I'm deliberately keeping any personality assessments out of it. Assange seems like a strange guy, but even if true, I agree that's besides the point.
So? When did exposing espionage become a bad thing?
>States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens
Says who? The states themselves?
It's just not possible to believe the story western society tells to itself about itself, and it's a harsh realization. Also, that was a persons life and mostly we can just watch as selected the enemy of the empire gets destroyed.
I don't think he is either a hero nor a villain, but has the classic mentality of the hacker-scene (both useful but also highly toxic). Broken people (aren't we all?) who try to be larger-than-life figures.
The difference between Assange and the rest is he thought "sticking it to the man" is possible while not living in a safe place that supports his "work". Assange has been living this fantasy of a small good guy who can fight back because of his hacking skills and never grew up from the kid he was. Who hasn't tried to access *.mil domains in the late 80ies or hack a payphone for free international calls? At least everyone bragged about it. There are people still out there today claiming you can issue a "climb command"[0] to the CAN-bus of an aircraft via the infotainment system just so they are liked more on social media (same sad mentality).
His biggest flaw is not taking sides and thinking that he could get away with exposing US interests from US friendly territory. All of the wannabe independent citizen journalists who are successful must be backed by the intelligence community in the country they operate. Bellingcat is a good example because it paints the outfit as something that was bootstrapped by 1 guy without a job in his bedroom (Elliot Higgins) but Elliot has good friends in UK intelligence and Atlantic council. Belingcat does fantastic work but believe not for 1 second that they would be able to drop the intel that Assange did without getting retired quickly. You can not work in IC without choosing a side that you feed the info to and that you also rely on support. Assange thought he could live like a digital nomad traveling on his real passport while literally calling DoS asking to speak to H. Clinton and strongarm her.
His failure to chose a side meant life chose a side for him, by becoming the mouthpiece for Guccifer 2.0 (GRU). I do not think he decided to pick a side suddenly (RU), but that he ended up being a useful idiot that eventually had no choice but to double down. Both so that he isn't seen flip-flopping but also because FVEY already were out to get him. The sheer stupidity of doing all this from Europe and UK is hard to understand . If you upset your own Western government you better have a second passport from China or Russia and don't do it from that country. It's what activists who want to be martyrs do but not journalists or members of the IC. Assange thought he could play in all these camps which is why he will eventually get disappeared into the prison system after this farce of a trial. The biggest casualty other than Assange is the truth.
Also it anyone who who supported him has their own story about how they were hunted/harassed (Jacob Appelbaum, Ola Bini, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, ...)
[0] https://www.usenix.org/publications/loginonline/vulnerable-s...
[1] Australia today isn't a real country but just a propaganda mouthpiece for the US IMHO. Australia is where the most conservative idea that are too insane to be tested in the US get rolled out- check the AABill where the gov can show up demanding you implement a backdoor without being able to disclose it to your employer or end up behind bars. They even have a law now that let's LE plant evidence. There is a fantastic show called "underbelly" (the "Sopranos of Austriala") which does a great job showing how corrupt law enforcement is in Australia.
You are describing fascism here.
This is a scary rhetoric that attaches reporting responsibility to the authorities which they are meant to keep in check.
There must be another way.
No matter which country you look at if you intend to upset their power structure (or the structure of a powerful ally that you want to appease), you will not have rights. Even more so when you're not a citizen of that country.
PS Epstein didn't kill himself and where is the coverage for Ghislaine's trail? Is the story being buried because too many important men visited the infamous island? Shame the Johns!!!! #TimesUp #meToo
If I recall correctly, the thesis of wikileaks from their beginning was that leaks increase the cost and complexity to governments keeping their actions secret therefore providing a sort of forcing function to reduce both the number and scope of dishonorable actions carried out in secret.
Wikileaks is best understood as a force vector in a system. It's possible to have an opinion on the idea of leaking as a force for good. And that opinion could be conditional or even strong disagreement. The strength and direction of someone's opinion on that will determine how their opinion of Assange is further influenced. Influenced by the ancillary topics like sources of leaks, sources of funding, topics leaked about and editorial control exercised over what is released.
People's opinion on wikileaks in general can change after seeing who takes the "W"s and who takes the "L"s, and it's worthwhile to cultivate a feedback loop where your opinion of wikileaks is downstream from your opinion of leaking in general. Frankly, I don't care whether he is a good guy or a bad guy. I'm not having him around for Christmas, he's a force vector in a system. I have an opinion on that force vector.
It's worth also remembering that good/bad is different than legal/illegal, and that our standards for government includes the expectation of just due process even for those that are obviously monstrous criminals.
That's not my perception at all. It seems to me that people support Assange because the US don't like people showing proof of their war crimes, so they want to make an example of him.
I don't disagree, but that this has never been considered to bind those who are not citizens or residents of those states. Is there a state in existence today that does not maintain what intelligence apparatus it can afford, in order to learn the secrets of other states?
But I'm not so happy with his grand-standing, with the way he handled some of the data, with his attempts to work with Russia and Trump to influence US elections, or with how he handled those Swedish rape allegations.
There is plenty of criticism for everybody here. But the biggest issue is still the core issue: does the US have the right to commit war crimes, and does it have the right to persecute anyone who tries to publicise those crimes?
(I wonder why Dame Cressida Rose Dick DBE QPM won't investigate the House of Lords cash-for-peerages scandal? https://news.sky.com/story/met-police-urged-to-launch-cash-f... - but why do we have a permanent unelected legislature anyway? That has to be a corruption magnet)
I do find the hyperfocus on Assange rather weird though.
Inequality and meritocracy are euphemism for caste system
But probably the judge doesn't care about the view of history.
They are telegraphing the entire world here, if you want to expose the truth, think again and maybe stfu.
> Giving the judgement, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett said: "That risk is in our judgement excluded by the assurances which are offered.
// Edit
Further, we should stop all extraditions to the US until they stop the barbaric practice of capital punishment.
I genuinely wonder if people in the US see countries like the UK, Australia, Germany, etc as being "partners" in some kind of relationship of equals? Whereas, from the other side of the telescope it genuinely feels like living in a vassal state "They say jump. We say 'how high?'"
There may be as yet undiscovered tribes in the midst of the Amazonian jungle who were surprised by this decision. But, in the UK, we all knew that, once the US "demanded" the UK would bend over and lube up... after the usual bit of judicial theatre, to make it all appear above board, of course.
Guess I should stock up on gift shop trinkets more often, if they are so useful for securing favors.