# Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested



## Joe88 (Apr 11, 2019)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737

He was kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy and was forcibly removed by police officers and arrested. He is heard shouting "the UK must resist the trump administration"
The US has requested him to be extradited to the US to face charges https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/world/europe/julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuador-embassy.html
He is also facing charges in other countries for other crimes.
He has been already been found guilty with bail breaching in the London.

current timeline
https://www.apnews.com/328522adb35b4445a3fb875d63fb0870


----------



## Lacius (Apr 11, 2019)

It's about time.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 11, 2019)

This is bad. People think he hacked the DNC and colluded with Russia. He is not a hacker. He is a reporter. People give him documents and he just reports it. He is a journalist and a refugee and yet people are outraged. All because they hate Trump so much they don't care about a man exposing corruption.


This guy was the hero to the left along time ago because he exposed war crimes.
Now many on the left are cheering for his arrest because of the stupid Russia Gate conspiracy theory nonsense. Which has no evidence to support and shown to be false.

It's freedom of speech and freedom of the press unless it's against the government. Then your freedom of speech rights will be restricted. And the U.K. is going full facism, with censorship laws, speech restrictions to where people are getting arrested, and letting the U.S. get Assange. They tried to get him on sexual assault cases which didn't work. Now they are trying to get him on this.



Julian Assange is a foreign journalist and not born in the U.S. And the United States is charging him on criminal charges all because he published truthful information. And people are cheering for this.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> This is bad. People think he hacked the DNC and colluded with Russia. He is not a hacker. He is a reporter. People give him documents and he just reports it. He is a journalist and a refugee and yet people are outraged. All because they hate Trump so much they don't care about a man exposing corruption.
> 
> 
> This guy was the hero to the left along time ago because he exposed war crimes.
> ...


Being _true_ is not the only threshold for whether or not it's legal (or moral) to publish something.

Edit: Russia's illegal meddling in the 2016 election is also not a conspiracy theory. It's fact.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 11, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Being _true_ is not the only threshold for whether or not it's legal (or moral) to publish something.


Who cares, he worked with law enforcement to redact information that can get people killed and put national security at risk, and only let out information that is safe that exposes corruption. It is within is right as a journalist to publish information of the corruption in the government and expose Hillary's Emails. 

It's in the first amendment. 1st amendment is not just freedom of speech, its also freedom of the press, freedom to peacefully assemble. And freedom to petition government to redress grievances, to make a complaint about the government and they can't do anything to stop you or suppress you. You are siding with a government that serves corporate interests that you are supposedly against.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Who cares, he worked with law enforcement to redact information that can get people killed and put national security at risk, and only let out information that is safe that exposes corruption. It is within is right as a journalist to publish information of the corruption in the government and expose Hillary's Emails.
> 
> It's in the first amendment. 1st amendment is not just freedom of speech, its also freedom of the press, freedom to peacefully assemble. And freedom to petition government to redress grievances, to make a complaint about the government and they can't do anything to stop you or suppress you. You are siding with a government that serves corporate interests that you are supposedly against.


These freedoms are not unrestricted. I'm also siding with the law.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 11, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Being _true_ is not the only threshold for whether or not it's legal (or moral) to publish something.
> 
> Edit: Russia's illegal meddling in the 2016 election is also not a conspiracy theory. It's fact.


My comment was about Assange colluding with Russia, not whether they did meddle, which I have stated many times they likely did, like other countries also did, like Israel and China. The issue is collusion not meddling.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> These freedoms are not unrestricted. I'm also siding with the law.


Your siding with a corrupt government that created laws in their interests and benefits. Trying to get him on the espionage act.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> My comment was about Assange colluding with Russia, not whether they did meddle, which I have stated many times they likely did, like other countries also did, like Israel and China. The issue is collusion not meddling.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


First, I said nothing about collusion, and that doesn't mean Assange didn't commit a crime. Second, I'm not anti-government.


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 11, 2019)

though i side with the law on this (for national security reasons) it doesn't make it right for the CIA to spy on an average citizen without going through the same legal path to get a warrant to tap phones it's scary really i can understand terrorism as the cause but whats to stop them from throwing warrants out the window for say drug/weapon raids or even software piracy (looking through someones electronic media without a warrant) this is happening saddly


----------



## GhostLatte (Apr 11, 2019)

Meanwhile Snowden is just chilling in Russia.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 11, 2019)

Lacius said:


> First, I said nothing about collusion, and that doesn't mean Assange didn't commit a crime. Second, I'm not anti-government.


Then why even bring it up as if it had anything to do with what I was saying.


So your ok with the war crimes them not being out in the open? And side with the gov. Hillary had a private server which she bleached to cover up evidence, then was easily let off the hook. She has classified, top secret information in these servers. Any other person that tried that would be in jail. A man was jailed for taking photos of top secret information for memories of his time working in gov, and didn't share it with anybody, but was still jailed.



Did Assange illegal get the information or was he given the information. Two separate cases here. So far there is nothing with him colluding to get information. So it's within his right as a journalist to publish that information.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 11, 2019)




----------



## nando (Apr 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Then why even bring it up as if it had anything to do with what I was saying.
> 
> 
> So your ok with the war crimes them not being out in the open? And side with the gov. Hillary had a private server which she bleached to cover up evidence, then was easily let off the hook. She has classified, top secret information in these servers. Any other person that tried that would be in jail. A man was jailed for taking photos of top secret information for memories of his time working in gov, and didn't share it with anybody, but was still jailed.
> ...




maybe i'm remembering this wrong, but he didn't just release information, he strategically waited and released information at key times to affect the elections. there is more going on then just reporting here.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 11, 2019)

nando said:


> maybe i'm remembering this wrong, but he didn't just release information, he strategically waited and released information at key times to affect the elections. there is more going on then just reporting here.


Is there? Or is it just circumstantial coincidence? People connecting dots that really means nothing.



What's ridiculous is they let Hillary of the hook because they said she showed no malice for having these servers. They get a guy for having picture of top secret information on his phone for memories, but they accuse him of malice, but Hillary having top secret information herself and trying to bleach servers and telling her assistants to break black berry phones is somehow not malice. But its way past the time putting her in jail now, so its pointless on trying to get her on this now.


----------



## nando (Apr 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Is there? Or is it just circumstantial coincidence? People connecting dots that really means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> What's ridiculous is they let Hillary of the hook because they said she showed no malice for having these servers. They get a guy for having picture of top secret information on his phone for memories, but they accuse him of malice, but Hillary having top secret information herself and trying to bleach servers and telling her assistants to break black berry phones is somehow not malice. But its way past the time putting her in jail now, so its pointless on trying to get her on this now.




it is not coincidence when he was taunting the reveals.

" although he did promise to publish information regarding the presidential election “every week for the next 10 weeks.”

that's not reporting, that's a coordinated attack


what kind of reporter holds on to vital reporting for 10 weeks? had he released that info as soon as he had it, the democrats might have gone with a different candidate, but his intent was an attack, not reporting.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Then why even bring it up as if it had anything to do with what I was saying.
> 
> 
> So your ok with the war crimes them not being out in the open? And side with the gov. Hillary had a private server which she bleached to cover up evidence, then was easily let off the hook. She has classified, top secret information in these servers. Any other person that tried that would be in jail. A man was jailed for taking photos of top secret information for memories of his time working in gov, and didn't share it with anybody, but was still jailed.
> ...


I don't have time to point out each thing you got wrong here, so I'm just going to say that it's irrelevant what anybody else did wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

As for the topic at hand, Assange did more than release information. Among other things, he coordinated with another person in an attempt to crack DOJ passwords, which is illegal.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 11, 2019)

nando said:


> it is not coincidence when he was taunting the reveals.
> 
> " although he did promise to publish information regarding the presidential election “every week for the next 10 weeks.”
> 
> ...


So did Snowden. You are talking hundreds of documents to go through redact and see what is safe to not put us in National Security risk. So of course they wont release it all at once.




Lacius said:


> I don't have time to point out each thing you got wrong here, so I'm just going to say that it's irrelevant what anybody else did wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> As for the topic at hand, Assange did more than release information. Among other things, he coordinated with another person in an attempt to crack DOJ passwords, which is illegal.


They let Hillary off the hook on the case of intent. But fine i'll give you the Hillary Clinton case, i don't want to focus too much on her since I don't care about her anymore. She was innocent on that she was unaware. But this Julian Assange business is about her emails and other gov information.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kristian-saucier/
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/spinning-the-fbi-letter/




Lacius said:


> As for the topic at hand, Assange did more than release information. Among other things, he coordinated with another person in an attempt to crack DOJ passwords, which is illegal.




Did he? Innocent until proven guilty. So far none evidence has shown up.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> So did Snowden. You are talking hundreds of documents to go through redact and see what is safe to not put us in National Security risk. So of course they wont release it all at once.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right, that's what is alleged, which means it is a good thing he has been arrested. That's how the criminal justice system works, and that's how it should work.

If the evidence isn't there, he will be found not guilty.


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 11, 2019)

Humans can be many things at one time. They can be heroes and criminals. they can be neither. actions are weighed indepedently of each other.

Governments should be as transparent as humanly possible. As their first reaction is to be as secretive as humanly possible, there has to be checks and balances. This is journalism. This is why we hold journalism and freedom of speech and press in such high regard. Generally, we trust those who publish such things to assess the need for transparency to the need for protection of lives. You do not trust the government to unbiasedly assess the value of transparency. We trust journalist with this, not the government. Journalist are protected by the USA Constitution for this reason. Or we used to be protected, at any rate.

Assange's organization published everything. No assessment or judgement calls. just published what they were given after verifying they were legit. They did time some releases so as to get more publicity, but that's more about making sure "news" organizations actually reported on the government properly for a change. Some on the left don't like him, because someone leveraged wikileak's good name to influence the election. They did this by leaking *only* things that made the DNC and the democrats look squiffy. Not necessarily the whole story, just the story they hoped would create a false impression. Which wikileaks leaked without assessing the need to understand how it would affect people because of their ideological perspective. Which is probably why some on the right likes him. Wikileaks released them because they release what they get. Which is their decision, and that is their decision to own up to. The hate on the methodology is different than the hate on fundamental necessity of protecting whistle blowers.

So, journalist? Or information facilitator?

Regardless, I doubt he deserves the treatment he's going to get.


----------



## CORE (Apr 11, 2019)

This I dont agree with same as Snowden.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 11, 2019)

Now please arrest Trump. Today he said "I know nothing about WikiLeaks!", in 2016 he said "Oh, we love WikiLeaks!" and praised it 160 TIMES DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN. ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY TIMES!!! Just like every other time he's backtracked on things he says... including the many times over that he's backtracked on Russia comments. I know them, I don't know them, I've had great meetings with them, I've never met them, I've done plenty of business with them, I've never done business with them....blah blah blah blah blah. Or people who previously worked for him - Oh, he's one of the best! He's a great friend and I've known him for years. Next thing is Who? I don't know him and I've never talked to him before. How do his supporters keep justifying his outright lies and continual backpedaling? Anyone supporting that MAGA loser is every bit as vile, disgusting, and unintelligent as Trump himself is. No wall, no tax break except for the rich, no health plan info until after possibly being reelected, etc. So much winning. Not.


----------



## Viri (Apr 11, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Regardless, I doubt he deserves the treatment he's going to get.


If the US gets him, they're going to give him a one way trip to Gitmo. Also, Christ, he looks awful, I guess being stuck in a room for x amount of years does that to you. He gives me Saddam vibes, after they found him.


----------



## nando (Apr 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> So did Snowden. You are talking hundreds of documents to go through redact and see what is safe to not put us in National Security risk. So of course they wont release it all at once.



that was not the reason. that's not why someone goes on talkshows to hype the release of documents to destroy a political party. i'm sorry you bought it, but i don't. his intent was not benevolent for the benefit of the people. and i didn't make any argument for snowden so i don't care if "so did snowden"


----------



## kuwanger (Apr 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Now many on the left are cheering for his arrest because of the stupid Russia Gate conspiracy theory nonsense. Which has no evidence to support and shown to be false.



While I don't entirely consider myself someone on the left--as I frequently don't agree with the Democrats on things--, I honestly don't care if he did or didn't engage in a conspiracy with Russia to meddle with the election.  It's not illegal nor should it be for individuals to meddle in elections, especially foreign ones.  If that were the standard to use, we should arrest and convict most multinational corporate CEOs since lobbying for influence is the norm and virtually none are seriously beholden to a single country.  More importantly, Assange is specifically not beholden to the US in either citizenship or jurisdiction, and it's patently absurd to apply US law by proxy of treaty in other countries.

Having said that, yes Assange should be arrested and properly punished for skipping bail.  At this point, the extradition by Sweden should be null and void even if they attempted to further pursue it as they've demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue it for years without good justification--they could have put it on hold without dismissing it.  If the UK wanted to expel him after punishment, that'd also be pretty reasonable.


----------



## CORE (Apr 11, 2019)

Anything Withheld from the Public is Treason Simple as that!


----------



## notimp (Apr 11, 2019)

Assange was worth 4.2 billion. In credit. 

Not too shabby...

https://www.enca.com/business/imf-approves-42bn-loan-ecuador


----------



## notimp (Apr 11, 2019)

Democracy Now has Assanges defense team on camera:


They also cite a bunch of cival society figures speaking out on behalf on Assange.

According to the legal team of Assange, Ecuador is in violation of international law, ecuadorian constituttional law, ecuadorian case law...

Also the reason for the extradition request is the international warrant taken out by the US, and not the Sweden case.

Also Snowden has tweeted in full support of Assange (line of questioning previously in this thread). Reporters Without Borders has also spoken out on his behalf.


----------



## notimp (Apr 11, 2019)

Also in honor of the developments of the day - I think it hasnt been said clearly enough as of now.

Fuck the US.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 11, 2019)

notimp said:


> Also in honor of the developments of the day - I think it hasnt been said clearly enough as of now.
> 
> Fuck the US.



Oh, please. Stop acting like your precious little country is pure perfection and that no one there ever does any wrong. Just because there are some bad/unethical people in the US, you're just going to post "Fuck the US" in it's entirety? If that's going to be the case, and solely because of your single post above...

Fuck Japan.

See how incredibly stupid you sound now?


----------



## notimp (Apr 11, 2019)

Yes especially as I'm not even japanese. People who live to defend national myths are stupid.

And they are openly insane, if they do it in face of outright corruption and injustice.

I stand by my statement.

And today I think it has to stand.

Because otherwise we talk more about the person again, than about the actual violations of law here.

The statement somehow - emotionally - feels right and needed.

Same old story, idiots think politics is a game of faces an he said, she said. Just because you sell more papers/clicks that way. And in all that talk about names, and motivations, you dont care the least about violated legal principals, bribed governments, and UK policemen with a smirk of joy on their face, when they see someone being manhandled.

This has pushed it over the top for me. Video footage of a bobby having an internal orgasm, while someone is dragged into a van. Violating international law. Broadcast all over the world.


To spell this out once more. Assange was given the ecuadorian citizenship. So this is a case of one country being invited, to arrest another countries citizen, in one of their embassies. Thats "never been heard of" quality of reality distortion at play here. And the real trick is, that no one is talking about that.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2019)

Was only a matter of time.  Frankly I'd rather he be put on trial and charged in the UK, as our nation's top law enforcement official is in the pocket of the president and currently engaged in a cover-up scandal.  The only reason for the Trump administration to want him charged here is so that they can give him a sweetheart plea deal, much like they did for Jeffrey Epstein.


----------



## Joe88 (Apr 11, 2019)

notimp said:


> To spell this out once more. Assange was given the ecuadorian citizenship. So this is a case of one country being invited, to arrest another countries citizen, in one of their embassies. Thats "never been heard of" quality of reality distortion at play here. And the real trick is, that no one is talking about that.


He was granted asylum status. Then his status was revoked and assange would not leave requiring the use of UK police to remove him from the embassy by force which ecuuador allowed in. According to the ecuadorian embassy tensions were rising within the last few weeks/months between them and assange, he was playing load music all night, playing with a soccerball in the hall ways, roller skating in the building causing damage to to the property, refused to clean up after his cat, becoming paranoid and thought embassy staff were spying for the US and apparently he was mistreating them. Lets just say releasing classified documents on ecuador wasnt helping anything either. He also smeared his own fecal matter all over the walls before he was removed.
Don't bite the hands that feeds you.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...t-follow-new-ecuador-embassy-rules-says-judge


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Apr 11, 2019)

Corbyn wants to block any extradition because Assange exposed evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 11, 2019)

Is this the guy who neglected a cat he received from a family visit?


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Apr 11, 2019)

How to get exonerated: 



Make sure no one remembers what you did.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> How to get exonerated:
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure no one remembers what you did.



For all we know, there's evidence in the Mueller report that Trump directed Roger Stone to communicate with Assange and Wikileaks.  Short of that, however, this is just another one of those lies that most people brush aside as "Trump being Trump."  Completely oblivious to the fact that the bar used to be a lot higher for presidents, and one of the articles of impeachment for Nixon was, "lying to the American people."


----------



## SG854 (Apr 12, 2019)

Chelsea Manning is a Hero. She has a conscience risked and herself being persecuted by breaking the stupid law to bring us information about our government. 

Julian Assange is a hero. Who cares if he or she broke the law. This takes courage knowing the bad that will come. You people supporting this arrest and punishment are siding with the enemy. Who gives a crap about some stupid law put in there to limit free speech and freedom of the press. We have a right to know what our government is up to, people pay taxes and have a right to know what know what they do. How can anybody support this?

This is a huge hit on our first amendment rights and on whistle blowers. That they can’t take secretive government information that the public should know. That somehow that’s a criminal offense. Don’t talk ill or expose the government or else we’ll persecute you. If the Trump administration goes hard on Assange then they are trash.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Julian Assange is a hero. Who cares if he or she broke the law. This takes courage knowing the bad that will come. You people supporting this arrest and punishment are siding with the enemy. Who gives a crap about some stupid law put in there to limit free speech and freedom of the press. We have a right to know what our government is up to, people pay taxes and have a right to know what know what they do. How can anybody support this?


Assange is a narcissist and an opportunist who helped adversaries of the US compromise the integrity of its presidential election.  He stopped being a "hero" the second he decided to push a political agenda rather than continuing to publish all leaks pertaining to illegal/unethical behavior in an independent manner.  Wikileaks transitioned from being a reliable source for leaks into just another tabloid rag years ago.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> publish all leaks


Just wanted to clear that up for people who may not know: *Assange* published documents; people, *like C. Manning* helped (Assange) with the details.


----------



## dAVID_ (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Assange is a narcissist and an opportunist who helped adversaries of the US compromise the integrity of its presidential election.  He stopped being a "hero" the second he decided to push a political agenda rather than continuing to publish all leaks pertaining to illegal/unethical behavior in an independent manner.  Wikileaks transitioned from being a reliable source for leaks into just another tabloid rag years ago.


By releasing the Hillary Clinton e-mail archives?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

dAVID_ said:


> By releasing the Hillary Clinton e-mail archives?


No, by failing to release leaks that they were known to have in-hand.  Leaks pertaining to things that would look bad for Republicans and/or Russian oligarchs, along with other political parties that Assange personally favored around the globe.  He was obviously growing more and more self-centered with the goal of Wikileaks as time went on, and the reasons for his being kicked out of the embassy certainly reinforce that in recent years.

I suppose you can make the argument that if Assange had released anything pertaining to the Russian government, he would have been dead in a number of days.  I'd agree with that.  Maybe the saying is true: you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.


----------



## Glyptofane (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Was only a matter of time.  Frankly I'd rather he be put on trial and charged in the UK, as our nation's top law enforcement official is in the pocket of the president and currently engaged in a cover-up scandal.  The only reason for the Trump administration to want him charged here is so that they can give him a sweetheart plea deal, much like they did for Jeffrey Epstein.


I mean, honestly, I am an Assange supporter even years ago when he was considered a leftist MO sort of guy. Still, today's news disgusts and saddens me. This guy's existence is definitely one of the contributing factors that influenced Trump's election, which I now realize is just Kushner and Bibi. They fooled me, Jerry. I don't expect Trump to pardon or make this right or do anything Great really.

Yang and/or Gabbard 2020


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> I mean, honestly, I am an Assange supporter even years ago when he was considered a leftist MO sort of guy. Still, today's news disgusts and saddens me. This guy's existence is definitely one of the contributing factors that influenced Trump's election, which I now realize is just Kushner and Bibi. They fooled me, Jerry. I don't expect Trump to pardon or make this right or do anything Great really.
> 
> Yang and/or Gabbard 2020


I'd be happy to have Yang as the candidate, idk about Gabbard.  Lots of good candidates on the Democratic side though TBH.  Sanders is promising everything short of a UBI like Yang is.  I think Julian Castro is a really good potential candidate that often gets overlooked, as well.  He's young but still has quite a bit of relevant experience, much like Yang.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Assange is a narcissist and an opportunist who helped adversaries of the US compromise the integrity of its presidential election.  He stopped being a "hero" the second he decided to push a political agenda rather than continuing to publish all leaks pertaining to illegal/unethical behavior in an independent manner.  Wikileaks transitioned from being a reliable source for leaks into just another tabloid rag years ago.


Him being kicked out was the Ecuadorian president using it as a cover up for his own scandals. Nowhere does it say that someone behavior is excuse to kick someone out seeking asylum.

And so what if he became an unpleasant person in the embassy. He was locked up for years, with hardly any sunlight, ostracized from the outside world in a small room, with cameras everywhere. That makes people crazy. And somehow his behavior in the embassy is excuse to stop him from exposing the government. Who cares about his behavior what’s more important is him exposing the government.




Publish information they didn’t have?

His comment about the democrats and him supposedly siding with the republicans. It was not rooted in ideological bias, it was him saying he thinks a republican will be better in office because they will face a lot more resistance then Hillary Clinton. That Hillary was war hawkish and will get away with a lot more. She supported Military action Libya and Middle East. And he was right. Look at how much resistance Trump is getting, he still can’t even get a wall, people still believe in Russia collusion. And people are resisting him hard. More then they’ll resist Hillary.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Him being kicked out was the Ecuadorian president using it as a cover up for his own scandals. Nowhere does it say that someone behavior is excuse to kick someone out seeking asylum.


Rofl, the _Ecuadorian_ embassy had no obligation to accept his request of asylum in the first place.  They certainly don't have an obligation to keep his slobby ass around for more than X number of years.  Assange was accusing the people at the embassy on spying on him, FFS.  It's just as Joe said: you don't bite the hand that feeds you.



SG854 said:


> It was not rooted in ideological bias, it was him saying he thinks a republican will be better in office


The only person I've seen contradict themselves faster is Trump himself.  



SG854 said:


> Publish information they didn’t have?


On Russian government leaks: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/1...-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/

On Assange's affiliation with/lying for the Republican party: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...has_been_trolling_democrats_all_his_life.html


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Apr 12, 2019)

Personally I feel what he has done was the right thing of exposing government corruptness, exposing the lies, and bringing to light a small part of what truly happens behind the scenes.

I am glad that he has been arrested. Why? Because if I was in his shoes I would feel that being taken out of that prison and into another is at least some change of scenery.

I want to see a fair and unbiased trial for him. If he in fact did do anythign illegal in terms of hacking or anything else illegal, then he should be punished. But what should we consider as illegal?

If any government purposely did anything to harm innocent people, like the wikileaks articles report, who is in the right? The people covering it up or the people that are willing to expose it all?

Much of this information was just handed to him and he only just accepted it and displayed it all. I would even go as far to say that it is mostly unbiased because he has exposed things that can harm all sides of the political spectrum.

Now, granted, I could be wrong about this stuff because I have not followed it closely, so please educate me on anything that I am wrong about. I have only bothered to pay attention to the surface level crap, like headlines and such.

I do hope that Julian gets minimal prison time. I am uncertain if he deserves any at all.


Lets look at this another way.
Lets say that you you are playing some MMORPG. You hear through the grapevine that the higher ups are giving perks to close friends and they are giving them enough to win battles and rather rule the realm. (sorry, I don't know mmorpg terms). The higher ups are creating a monopoly and becoming rich with cheats and other bullshit that is not legitimate.

Now, we have this knowledgeable person named Julian that was handed evidence of how the administrators are fixing the system so they can make bank in the end. Literally, a conspiracy. Would Julian be a bad person for telling everyone that Bethesda (or other company) is rigging the system and exposing the corruption in the system?

I am leaving this question rather open ended because I would like to hear other peoples opinions about it all. Someone may have a different perspective about it and help shed some light on things that I have not previously considered.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Much of this information was just handed to him and he only just accepted it and displayed it all.


We know for a fact that he chose not to display some of it, see the post above yours.  Happy temp-day, btw.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Rofl, the _Ecuadorian_ embassy had no obligation to accept his request of asylum in the first place.  They certainly don't have an obligation to keep his slobby ass around for more than X number of years.  Assange was accusing the people at the embassy on spying on him, FFS.  It's just as Joe said: you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
> 
> 
> The only person I've seen contradict themselves faster is Trump himself.
> ...



There’s the answer to your question from the article you linked.


> Assange said he had information on Trump but that it wasn’t worth publishing. (In a message to FP, WikiLeaks now says the organization “received no original documents on the campaign that did not turn out to be already public.”)
> 
> “The problem with the Trump campaign,” Assange said at the time, “is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day.”



And for the second article where in the article does it say he had affiliation with the republicans? He denied that he was affiliated with trump and denied that he was involved with Russia. And Assange has been 100% correct. As far as I’m aware, Never had to redact once.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> And for the second article where in the article does it say he had affiliation with the republicans? He denied that he was affiliated with trump and denied that he was involved with Russia. And Assange has been 100% correct. As far as I’m aware, Never had to redact once.


He lied about his contacts with Roger Stone, which we now know because Stone is being charged with conspiracy among other things.  Stone hasn't been found guilty _yet_, but there is a literal mountain of evidence against him.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> He lied about his contacts with Roger Stone, which we now know because Stone is being charged with conspiracy among other things.  Stone hasn't been found guilty _yet_, but there is a literal mountain of evidence against him.


Can you post the post evidence. They claimed they had mountain of evidence on Trump Russia but there was actually 0 and they lied.


----------



## nashismo (Apr 12, 2019)

The forgotten hero, as a christian I know this man has made God's work on earth and that God loves him incredible so.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Apr 12, 2019)

So everyone on the left hates him because his website (of which he is not the sole operator) published something that tarnished the reputation of their particular cult. They don't claim the information was false, they don't even care that the actions described were illegal or that people died to cover it up (suicide by two gunshot wounds to the back of the head has become a bit of a meme these last 2 years), they are only mad because orange man win.

Now don't get me wrong, I personally don't like the man or his policies, and a whackjob rude billionaire with a Twitter addiction is not fit for any government position. Everyone has to understand that corruption has infested all the world's governments from the bottom to the top, and from every point on the political spectrum. There can be no checks and balances when every branch has the same goal. Don't vilify someone because they exposed an ugly truth about "your side."

Anyway, I'm really excited about this supposed "poison pill" or dead man's switch. Apparently an expert (or experts) says it will be impossible to stop if it releases. I hope it's something big and terrifying. Something so big and terrifying that it will be a catalyst for a chain of events that might elicit some real change throughout the world. I'm really hoping it's not just a bluff.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 12, 2019)

nashismo said:


> The forgotten hero, as a christian I know this man has made God's work on earth and that God loves him incredible so.


He has a lot of people respect him. Only the wacka loons with political bias don’t respect him. Who cares about partisan politics. Who cares about bias even if there was any that may damage one side, which no evidence shows there is bias. This is an attack on freedom of the press and free speech. Corrupt politics is still corrupt. Even if one publishes corruption on one side. They are not in a good position to hate this guy for doing good work. Any corruption out in the open is good for us.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

They don’t actually care that he might of broke the law by illegally getting information. This is an attempt by them to send a message and scare people and whistle blowers. Don’t mess with the government and expose us or we will jail you for life.


----------



## notimp (Apr 12, 2019)

Joe88 said:


> He was granted asylum status. Then his status was revoked and assange would not leave requiring the use of UK police to remove him from the embassy by force which ecuuador allowed in. According to the ecuadorian embassy tensions were rising within the last few weeks/months between them and assange, he was playing load music all night, playing with a soccerball in the hall ways,


Are you serious. I mean are you buying this? Because the other side of the story goes as such -

The past president of Ecuador had this stance toward his country behaving like a good little US sattelite state:


> Ecuador, However, sparked controversy in 2007, when the government of President Rafael Correa ordered the US withdraw from its military base at Manta by 2009. Correa offered Washington could maintain the base if Ecuador was granted a reciprocal military outpost in US territory.


src: https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/12704

While the current one is a US crony that got a 4.2 bn USD credit line for their plan to "economically restructure the country" from the IMF.

The former president, just denounced the current one publically as a traitor. (While he is being under corruption investigation, from the current government, but so is the current president...)


Clip is from RT, because OF COURSE this is political, and the only ones calling out the US as wankers on the public stage -- are and always will be russians.

The rest of the political world (not NGOs mind you) is engaging in funny smear campaigns, to tell each other, that Assange was arrested, because he played too much soccer in the corridors, and that an embassy NEEDED THE ASSISTANCE of local police, to get someone off of their grounds. So they didn't arrest him IN the embassy, but 10 feet in front of it after they dragged him out, being your point?

Effing denounciation games, slander, personal attacks - smear campaigns on character grounds.

"He heard music too loud..."

But, but thats what they said...They lied.

I mean, you can have it your way. Ecuador granted political asylum and citizenship to a US "enemy of the state" (because he exposed war crimes, publicly), then revoked it, because he played football in the corridors, and behaved like a spoiled brat (meaning, like a shut in - that went a little crazy after what 7 years?). Do you think the term "spoiled brat" in a press release, read off of a prompter by a president of a state, is coincidence as well? Bad choice of words maybe?

Or is it there to conjour up a public image of the guy thats now facing high treason and conspiracy charges by the worlds foremost superpower?


----------



## notimp (Apr 12, 2019)

And this tweet, from 8 days ago - was probably Assange, after he played too much soccer in the corridors, telling his Wikileaks friends, to make up a story about this being a political decision - to hide his guilt, for obviously playing too much soccer in embassy corridors...

BREAKING: A high level source within the Ecuadorian state has told @WikiLeaks that Julian Assange will be expelled within "hours to days" using  the #INAPapers offshore scandal as a pretext--and that it already has an agreement with the UK for his arrest.https://t.co/adnJph79wq— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 4, 2019


Bravo Mr. moderator, you truly _get_ politics on the international stage.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

And here is the obviously mistaken New York Times, commenting on why all those Press Freedom NGOs all of a sudden are up in arms, defending a 'spoiled brat' (because thats what you call whistleblowers now, facing life prison sentences):
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/us/politics/assange-indictment-press-freedom.html?rref=collection/byline/charlie-savage

You could read it. It basically states in so many words, what outright wankers the US are, in this case.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Can you post the post evidence. They claimed they had mountain of evidence on Trump Russia but there was actually 0 and they lied.


How do you know "they" lied?  _Still_ nobody has seen the Mueller report other than Barr, and he seems completely unwilling to give an unredacted copy to Congress, as they're entitled to.  How is anybody supposed to just take Barr's word for everything?


----------



## notimp (Apr 12, 2019)

Guys, I dont know if you noticed, but everyone in Public Relations lies. (f.e.)

So does every human being.

Now could you please get the "But Trumps the victim!" side discussion out of this thread please. People might see it as offensive. And yes, I get the irony, that thats coming from me. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Telepolis article (for german readers): https://www.heise.de/tp/features/As...-Ecuador-USA-und-Grossbritannien-4398076.html also commenting on this being a coordinated action between Ecuador, the US and the UK.


----------



## cots (Apr 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> This is bad. People think he hacked the DNC and colluded with Russia. He is not a hacker. He is a reporter. People give him documents and he just reports it. He is a journalist and a refugee and yet people are outraged. All because they hate Trump so much they don't care about a man exposing corruption.
> 
> This guy was the hero to the left along time ago because he exposed war crimes.
> Now many on the left are cheering for his arrest because of the stupid Russia Gate conspiracy theory nonsense. Which has no evidence to support and shown to be false.
> ...



The Liberals worshiped this guy until he could be used as ammo in their hate machine. Typical Liberal nonsense.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

cots said:


> The Liberals worshiped this guy until he could be used as ammo in their hate machine. Typical Liberal nonsense.


Liberals worshiped him when he was anti-establishment, and turned on him when he sold out to the establishment of Russia and other countries.  That's how liberals tend to work.  Assange became what Wikileaks was created to combat: a corrupt, self-serving individual with more money and influence than he knew how to handle.


----------



## notimp (Apr 12, 2019)

Ecuador just arrested Wikileaks members in Ecuador:


> After the announcement made by the Minister of the Interior , María Paula Romo , about the presence of a member of WikiLeaks and two Russian " hackers " who would be residing in Ecuador , former Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño reacted. According to Romo, in the last weeks evidence would have been found that a " key member of WikiLeaks " would be collaborating in attempts of destabilization perpetrated in Ecuador. These facts, according to Romo, would have been forged in collaboration with Ricardo Patiño , who was the chancellor when he was granted diplomatic asylum to Julian Assange , in 2012.


Probably also avid soccer fans.

And probably destabilizing Ecuador for the better part of *looking at my watch* 24 hours.

src: https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/informacion-wikileaks-hackers-rusos-fiscalia.html (use google translate, content was referred from the german Telepolis article)


----------



## cots (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Liberals worshiped him when he was anti-establishment, and turned on him when he sold out to the establishment of Russia and other countries.  That's how liberals tend to work.  Assange became what Wikileaks was created to combat: a corrupt, self-serving individual with more money and influence than he knew how to handle.



He didn't sell out to anyone. He reported on something that didn't fit into the Liberal agenda and got attacked for it. Like I said, typical Liberal nonsense.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

cots said:


> He didn't sell out to anyone. He reported on something that didn't fit into the Liberal agenda and got attacked for it. Like I said, typical Liberal nonsense.


He fucking sold out and bitched out, all at once.  Again it's not about what he published, but what he didn't.  Assange decided to operate out of fear, fear of Putin, and that's ultimately what led to his downfall and now his expulsion from an embassy/arrest.


----------



## notimp (Apr 12, 2019)

And the US has already presented an extradition request, where Assange is accused of "Having helped Chelsea Manning 2010 to breach the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet) for documents and communications classified as secret".

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but what Manning did, was basically to run a wget script ("download me all the things"), on a network, he had access to because he worked on it. (Complexity of 'any 9 year old could manage' if they werent swiping and touchtyping all day..  .)

How does Assange "help him hacking" in that regard? wget -help too complicated? 

Tech illiterate people drafting legal charges on hacking grounds once more? This will get funny - if the hearings are allowed to be public.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> He fucking sold out and bitched out, all at once.  Again it's not about what he published, but what he didn't.  Assange decided to operate out of fear, fear of Putin, and that's ultimately what led to his downfall and now his expulsion from an embassy/arrest.


He was already a refugee. I don’t think he fears Putin. He fears the U.S.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> And the US has already presented an extradition request, where Assange is accused of "Having helped Chelsea Manning 2010 to breach the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet) for documents and communications classified as secret".
> 
> Now correct me if I'm wrong, but what manning did, was basically to run a wget script ("download me all the things"), on a network, he had access to because he worked on it.
> 
> ...


What you described could be accurate, but what you're forgetting is that Chelsea Manning herself was likely quite tech illiterate.  Therefore it makes sense that someone would have to give her instructions on how to go about downloading everything.



SG854 said:


> He was already a refugee. I don’t think he fears Putin. He fears the U.S.


His decision to not publish leaks on the Russian government was motivated by fear of Putin.  He fears the US _now_ because prosecutors are seemingly trying to go after him hard for military leaks.


----------



## notimp (Apr 12, 2019)

Hacking with wget. Great.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> Yes especially as I'm not even japanese. People who live to defend national myths are stupid.
> 
> And they are openly insane, if they do it in face of outright corruption and injustice.
> 
> ...



Again, because of the stupidity of few - you judge an entire nation and ALL of it's people. Acting like every single person living in the USA has the exact same mindset. But whatever floats your boat. Doesn't matter if you're not Japanese. In fact, it makes my point even clearer. Because of you, who isn't even Japanese, just fuck Japan and everyone who lives there. It's really not a difficult concept to understand where I'm coming from.


----------



## cots (Apr 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> He was already a refugee. I don’t think he fears Putin. He fears the U.S.



Just take anyone that the Liberals put to fame. They used them until they are all dried up and then throw them out like yesterdays trash. He did mess with National Security and no matter how much you might want to defend him the laws regarding that issue and the way the public fear the entire situation really give the US government a lot of power. He's lucky he's a public figure otherwise he probably would have just vanished never to be heard from again.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

cots said:


> He's lucky he's a public figure otherwise he probably would have just vanished never to be heard from again.


Err...rather he's kinda in this mess precisely _because_ he's a public figure.  If he wasn't a guy who posts government/military secrets on the internet, nobody who could make him "disappear" would be after him.  And I'm not sure why you think Trump's administration would go that harshly on him regardless of his fame or lack thereof.

Trump is the president and has installed his lackeys in every department/agency.  You can stop pretending the "deep state" is real or controls anything now.  If it was, Trump would've been dead or removed from office quite some time ago.


----------



## the_randomizer (Apr 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> Also in honor of the developments of the day - I think it hasnt been said clearly enough as of now.
> 
> Fuck the US.



Here's something I want to say, fuck your anti-American bullshit and shove that mentality down your throat. We don't fucking want you over here anyway. Stop acting like any other country is magically better than any other country, because here's a newsflash, they aren't.

I don't go around bashing other countries' people for the actions of their governments, so don't go around doing the same to me, because it's just a stupid thing to do.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> unwilling to give an unredacted copy to Congress, as they're entitled



You have some law that says this? You’ve said this several times without backing it up. I don’t mean what you think “should” happen. I mean is there any legal imperative? There _are_ laws and regulations requiring the redactions.


----------



## the_randomizer (Apr 12, 2019)

Not all laws are morally grounded.


----------



## erikas (Apr 12, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Being _true_ is not the only threshold for whether or not it's legal (or moral) to publish something.
> 
> Edit: Russia's illegal meddling in the 2016 election is also not a conspiracy theory. It's fact.


If by "meddling" you mean they made memes, then yes. Also, exactly what about it was illegal?


----------



## the_randomizer (Apr 12, 2019)

erikas said:


> If by "meddling" you mean they made memes, then yes. Also, exactly what about it was illegal?



It's funny that people still bring it up as if doing so will change the past.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 12, 2019)

erikas said:


> If by "meddling" you mean they made memes, then yes. Also, exactly what about it was illegal?


Russia did a lot more than make memes.


----------



## notimp (Apr 12, 2019)

As far as russia is concerned Assange was merely a useful idiot (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot ) and a public figure they could use. If at all. (I'm not personally familiar with the matter..  )

The other stuff (Clinton emails, and Trump), has almost nothing to do with the matter at hand. (Published classified information on a whole bunch of things, including the Iraq war. Got himself in a whole lot of trouble because of it.) Yet, this thread is full of the stuff (Trump and Clinton emails) that really hardly matters at all.

In regards to the Clinton emails, a James Comey was far more responsible for the public impact, than an Assange was - yet I dont see him ending his life in a high security prison. 


What this means (imho) is, that people are projecting stories, and meanings onto the public figure of an Assange, instead of taking the precedings at face value.

He created an anonymous leak platform. He made some minor political moves (wasnt always impartial), now hes about to be locked away for life, maybe tortured, maybe put in solitary confinement, after a political deal, and a betrayal of granted immunity rights, by a south american country.

The Assange story.

Pamela Anderson can play the girlfriend in the movie.


----------



## the_randomizer (Apr 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> As far as russia is concerned Assange was merely a useful idiot (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot ) and a public figure they could use. If at all. (I'm not personally familiar with the matter..  )
> 
> The other stuff (Clinton emails, and Trump), has almost nothing to do with the matter at hand. (Published classified information on a whole bunch of things, including the Iraq war. Got himself in a whole lot of trouble because of it.) Yet, this thread is full of the stuff (Trump and Clinton emails) that really hardly matters at all.
> 
> ...



Oh so *that's* why you're bashing Americans and telling us to go fuck ourselves, makes sense to me. How very kind.


----------



## Viri (Apr 12, 2019)

Joe88 said:


> He was granted asylum status. Then his status was revoked and assange would not leave requiring the use of UK police to remove him from the embassy by force which ecuuador allowed in. According to the ecuadorian embassy tensions were rising within the last few weeks/months between them and assange, he was playing load music all night, playing with a soccerball in the hall ways, roller skating in the building causing damage to to the property, refused to clean up after his cat, becoming paranoid and thought embassy staff were spying for the US and apparently he was mistreating them. Lets just say releasing classified documents on ecuador wasnt helping anything either. He also smeared his own fecal matter all over the walls before he was removed.
> Don't bite the hands that feeds you.
> https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...t-follow-new-ecuador-embassy-rules-says-judge


Yuh, I read some of the stuff he did, it's like he wanted to get thrown out. But, I think being locked in a room like that gave him "cabin fever", and he started to lose his mind. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. I feel a bit sorry for him, because holy fuck if the US gets their hands on him. But, acting like a spoiled bitch, he brought it on him self.


----------



## Harumyne (Apr 12, 2019)

Seems a lot of people here are quite happy to let the US and UK do whatever they want to the people and rest of the world without question or objection..

If Julian Assange is extradited, well, who else is going to be brave enough to stick their heads over the trench to as little as alert people to facts that are being executed on our planet to our fellow kind.

The truth is nobodies possession, and should be beneath no law, end of.

Free Assange..

EDIT: 
For no singular country's greater good should the exposure of the truth be concealed, this national security argument is why other countries are being attacked relentlessly and nobody _really_ knows why, because nobody is allowed to tell us without committing 'espionage'..


----------



## erikas (Apr 12, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Russia did a lot more than make memes.


There's a reason wikipedia is not accepted as a source. Also considering how overused "russian trolls" are in the leftist media i just throw out any argument that contains the phrase. Stop blaming russians for people not liking you. And i'm from a country that was occupied by the soviet union. Nobody likes Putin here, but you can't just keep blaming everything on him. Also what kind of 10d chess is he playing? Relations between USA and Russia are worse than ever.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 12, 2019)

erikas said:


> There's a reason wikipedia is not accepted as a source.


Wikipedia is a perfectly acceptable compendium for use in the context of our conversation here. Saying _Wikipedia is bad_ doesn't do anything to demonstrate that Russia was only involved in _memes_, because they objectively weren't. If you don't like Wikipedia, there are sources at the bottom of the page for you.



erikas said:


> Relations between USA and Russia are worse than ever.


That's in part because they illegally meddled in the 2016 election.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You have some law that says this? You’ve said this several times without backing it up. I don’t mean what you think “should” happen. I mean is there any legal imperative? There _are_ laws and regulations requiring the redactions.


Yes, it's been precedent since Watergate (Barr even mentioned this in his testimony yesterday).  Just a couple years ago Congress received a full, unredacted report on Hillary's e-mails despite the fact that nobody was charged in that investigation.  Republicans don't tend to be subtle in their hypocrisy.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yes, it's been precedent since Watergate (Barr even mentioned this in his testimony yesterday).  Just a couple years ago Congress received a full, unredacted report on Hillary's e-mails despite the fact that nobody was charged in that investigation.  Republicans don't tend to be subtle in their hypocrisy.



What happened in previous investigations is pretty much irrelevant to this situation. Different types of investigations, different rules. Mueller was "special counsel." Ken Starr was "independent counsel." Jaworski (Watergate) was "special prosecutor." Different rules applied to each. Ken Starr _had to_ turn his report over directly to Congress. Seedy details about Clinton got leaked to the public, so Democrats and some Republicans insisted on a new position, new rules, i.e. "special counsel," and those rules now apply to Mueller. He _had to_ hand his report to the DOJ. Whether the DOJ provides it to Congress, the rules don't really say. (see https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-happen-muellers-report-become-public/586060/) There are lots of laws and regs about grand jury testimony and personally identifiable information of peripheral 3rd parties, though. (There are some grand jury docs from Watergate that were still under seal until last year.)

You can thank the democrats of the Clinton era, though their reason for objecting to such investigation reports being made public is obviously correct ... the reason they didn't want Starr's report public is exactly the reason they now want Mueller's report to be public.

“We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most all cases, be made public only if there is an indictment and prosecution, not in lengthy and detailed reports filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute,” Janet Reno, Clinton’s attorney general, told Congress at the time. *“The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target’s dirty laundry.”*

Now, _who's_ not being subtle about their hypocrisy???


----------



## notimp (Apr 12, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> Oh so *that's* why you're bashing Americans and telling us to go fuck ourselves, makes sense to me. How very kind.


Eff the US, not eff americans. Fine difference.
And one I insist on you noticing, while slandering me in a public place.

If you need more information on why "eff the US" you can watch the Chomsky videos of Democracy now - released today: https://www.youtube.com/user/democracynow/videos

There is no hidden meaning to it - simply go by what Chomsky teaches you about different foreign policy agendas of the US over time - then look at the double standards they apply, and you understand the sentiment.

Also whats *that's *supposed to mean? There is no hidden reveal on a motive to speak bad about the US anywhere in the thread. In fact I slander russia instead.

What I can't take is stupidity though. And the byline, that when we talk about Assange, we should talk about Trump and Hillary emails. You realize, that he already was stuck at an embassy - when that happened? Because the US already had an international warrant out for his person at that time? The same one under which grounds he is now being held for more than 24 hours?

I mean, if people would like to pin the most celebrity filled stories onto his legacy - and talk only about those, at least get the timeline straight. Of when certain things happened.

"He did release the Clinton emails though" (probably hacked by russians), yes - and this isnt why the US has a warrant out for his name.

Thats because the "allegedly helped Manning "hack" himself into a system that Manning already had access to" (only lawyers know how such a thing is possible), we know about this also only because of a misshap, because the US wanted to keep the fact hidden, that he was hiding at an embassy because of a reason - and kept it under wraps for actually a few years. (Afair)

edit: It was slightly different, read up on it on his wiki bio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange). The fact, that the US were preparing charges was officially revealed in 2017, when he already had been in the embassy for five years.

Before that they tried to make everyone think, that he was hiding from swedish law, because of potential investigations of him being a sex offender. That was fun. When you had to tell people, that thats not why a country like Ecuador would grant a person political asylum. But people always find it strangely hard to get the facts straight, when there is PR spin involved. Although in this case, it isnt even that hard.

Just dont buy lines, that he was arrested because he played soccer in embassy corridors, and that he stole the US election. And you are good. Doesnt seem that high effort. Of course if you are triggered, by the notion that someone might not like the political behavior of the US - some of the time, its that much harder for you...

Oh, do I hear 'merica the beautiful playing in the background? Makes me want to bomb another middle eastern country, just because I feel so patriotic. Maybe shoot a Reuters reporter, and then hide this fact from the world and his family.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You can thank the democrats of the Clinton era, though their reason for objecting to such investigation reports being made public is obviously correct ... the reason they didn't want Starr's report public is exactly the reason they now want Mueller's report to be public.


Nobody is asking for the full report to be made public, there's no issue with redacting for the public.  Think about it though: you're advocating for the _subject_ of the investigation to be the only one who sees the full contents of the report.  Other than his lackey, anyway.  All that would do is cement the public's perception of a cover-up.

Congress has a right to grand jury info.  If they release or leak any of it, they face criminal charges themselves, but it's not up to Barr to decide which info they can "handle" seeing.  First Iran-Contra, and now Trump-Russia, Barr is building quite the reputation for being the go-to corruption cover-up guy.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nobody is asking for the full report to be made public



Que?

The House of Representatives _voted_ for it to be public. Schumer tried to squeak/sneak it through the Senate without a roll call vote on Monday. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...rt-call-public-release-mueller-report-n987261

Mostly symbolic pissing in the wind, since it's not up to them. As I mentioned before and as explained in that Atlantic article I linked, the decision of what gets released and in what form belongs to the AG. 



> Think about it though: you're advocating for the _subject_ of the investigation to be the only one who sees the full contents of the report.p



I'm not advocating anything. I'm just disputing your insistence that Congress "has the right" to a full, unredacted report. 




> Congress has a right to grand jury info.



At best, I would expect that Barr would agree to allowing the Gang of Eight access to that material. But even that would be problematic, since Schiff leaks like a sieve.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Que?
> 
> The House of Representatives _voted_ for it to be public. Schumer tried to squeak/sneak it through the Senate without a roll call vote on Monday.
> 
> ...


Okay?  As I said, nobody is asking for the _full, unredacted_ report to be made public, just some version of the report.



Hanafuda said:


> I'm not advocating anything. I'm just disputing your insistence that Congress "has the right" to a full, unredacted report.


Congress has the power to subpoena the full report whether Barr ultimately chooses to give it to them or not.  The longer he chooses to draw this out, the more guilty it makes Trump look.  So I don't really care if he wants to spend the majority of his time gaslighting everyone.



Hanafuda said:


> At best, I would expect that Barr would agree to allowing the Gang of Eight access to that material. But even that would be problematic, since Schiff leaks like a sieve.


Barr has much bigger issues than Schiff, given that members of Mueller's team have personally contradicted his summary.  I doubt they'll stand by quietly if Barr continues pushing his luck with lies.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Barr has much bigger issues than Schiff, given that members of Mueller's team have personally contradicted his summary.  I doubt they'll stand by quietly if Barr continues pushing his luck with lies.



Any member of Mueller's team who has commented (they're almost all Democrats who are partisan enough that they've made contributions to candidates, you know that right?) has already broken the special counsel rules. I'm sure Mueller is thrilled about that. Rosenstein came out today with a statement that Barr's take on the report is correct. I do think Mueller would've already said something if he thought it wasn't. 

But again, I just disagree that ALL of Congress (all 535 of them) have a right to the full, unredacted report.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Any member of Mueller's team who has commented (they're almost all Democrats who are partisan enough that they've made contributions to candidates, you know that right?) has already broken the special counsel rules.


The investigation is complete, they aren't governed by those same rules any longer.  Thus the reason they won't be facing any repercussions for speaking out.



Hanafuda said:


> But again, I just disagree that ALL of Congress (all 535 of them) have a right to the full, unredacted report.


Barr accidentally admitted yesterday that his excuse for not giving them the unredacted report was bunk.  The precedent is in favor of Congress, and they'll subpoena if they have to.  It's just another instance of this adminstration believing they're above precedent and the law.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Barr accidentally admitted yesterday that his excuse for not giving them the unredacted report was bunk.  The precedent is in favor of Congress, and they'll subpoena if they have to.  It's just another instance of this adminstration believing they're above precedent and the law.



You mean like the subpoenas Holder ignored?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You mean like the subpoenas Holder ignored?


Republicans decided against holding Holder in contempt, which is the only way to give a subpoena real teeth.  Ultimately they decided they didn't care much about the 'Fast and Furious' scandal because it began under GWB, so it wasn't going to do the political damage to Obama that Republicans were hoping for.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Republicans decided against holding Holder in contempt, which is the only way to give a subpoena real teeth.




Actually it was an Obama-appointed federal judge who declined to hold AG Holder in contempt. Obama appointed judge refusing to force Obama's AG to comply with a Congressional subpoena ... how would you be reacting to that sentence if the word "Obama" was replaced with "Trump?" It could happen I guess.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/unde...ge-declines-to-hold-holder-in-contempt-196650


----------



## Xzi (Apr 13, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Actually it was an Obama-appointed federal judge who declined to hold AG Holder in contempt. Obama appointed judge refusing to force Obama's AG to comply with a Congressional subpoena ... how would you be reacting to that sentence if the word "Obama" was replaced with "Trump?" It could happen I guess.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/blogs/unde...ge-declines-to-hold-holder-in-contempt-196650


That'd be a best-case scenario actually since the judge still ordered the documents to be turned over.  If Congress has to subpoena the Mueller report, I'm expecting that battle to go to the Supreme Court, where boof-boy Kavanaugh and stolen-seat Gorsuch have things stacked in Trump's favor.  If they decide against holding Barr in contempt, and against releasing the unredacted report to Congress, the rule of law is essentially dead in this country, and the president is a king for all intents and purposes.  Time to start throwing tea into harbors again at that point.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That'd be a best-case scenario actually since the judge still ordered the documents to be turned over.



She only ordered 'non-privileged' documents to be turned over. And the AG got to determine what was privileged before Congress could see. That's what democrats are currently calling a cover-up.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 13, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> She only ordered 'non-privileged' documents to be turned over. And the AG got to determine what was privileged before Congress could see. That's what democrats are currently calling a cover-up.


Right, because the results of every other special/independent investigation were made available in their entirety to Congress.  That's what the precedent is.  The case you're referencing wasn't quite the same thing.  It was a demand for documents to be turned over _before _there was any investigation.


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2019)

Fascinating what the US want to extradite people for:


> Legal experts who spoke with CyberScoop said Assange didn’t actually have to directly hack anything to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which was enacted in 1984 to prohibit unauthorized access to a computer system. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, in March 2010 was engaged in a conspiracy with former U.S. Army soldier Chelsea Manning to access and publish classified material stolen from U.S. government networks, the indictment says.
> 
> By actively participating in the collection of data from a protected government network, rather than receiving it from a source after the collection — as journalists typically do — Assange is legally liable, according to prosecutors.
> 
> ...


https://www.cyberscoop.com/julian-assange-arrested-indictment/


----------



## SG854 (Apr 13, 2019)

Remember these criminal charges against Assange has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do about the 2016 election. It's not about Russia, nothing to do with the Podesta Emails, or Hilary Clinton, the DNC Server, Donna Brazile, the Dossier, or Trump, absolutely nothing. The criminal charges against Assange has to do with War Crimes the U.S. has committed. That Chelsea Manning exposed through Wikileaks. It has to do crimes exposed in 2010. 

Manning saw documents and videos of the corrupt crimes committed, that a U.S. helicopter was shooting at innocent civilians, children, and journalists, laughing while doing it, and did a double tap where they came back to shoot at the people and the red cross that tried to help the innocent civilians were shot at. Absolute war crimes. Manning also provided evidence that the U.S. tortured, bribed, lied, in the wars in the Middle East, and that she actually had a conscience and decided to expose all this stuff. And people are stupid enough, just plain god damn stupid, to support and cheer the criminal charges against Assange, because he supposedly broke some dumbass law that is used to censor this corruption they were doing. And they are trying to silence whistle blowers.

People are actually saying, which I can't believe, well they broke the law and two wrongs don't make a right. Well fuck the law. So what was Manning suppose to do? Not expose this stuff? Just stay quite on the war crimes the U.S. was committing and not let the Americans know about it? What the Fuck is the matter with people. How can they support these criminal charges.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-martyrdom-of-julian-assange/


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Remember these criminal charges against Assange has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do about the 2016 election.


We have no idea what prosecutors are planning to charge him with until he's extradited, and that may not happen at all.  I would be quite interested to see how Assange answers questions about his communications with Roger Stone, given that Stone is still currently being investigated.


----------



## blahblah (Apr 14, 2019)

Give him the death penalty.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Apr 14, 2019)

blahblah said:


> Give him the death penalty.


For?


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Liberals worshiped him when he was anti-establishment, and turned on him when he sold out to the establishment of Russia and other countries.  That's how liberals tend to work.  Assange became what Wikileaks was created to combat: a corrupt, self-serving individual with more money and influence than he knew how to handle.


Isn't Trump anti establishment? Wasn't that his whole angle?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> Isn't Trump anti establishment? Wasn't that his whole angle?


He's an establishment neo-con that plays an anti-establishment nationalist on TV.  Trump was born rich as an East-coast elite, he was literally part of the establishment from day one.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 14, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> Isn't Trump anti establishment? Wasn't that his whole angle?


His whole shtick was I was part of the establishment so I know how the establishment works and I can call out what they do. I have experience in it basically.
What the Trump administration doing to Assange is trashy. Not even the Obama administration went after Assange like this. It sets bad precedent for journalists.




Xzi said:


> We have no idea what prosecutors are planning to charge him with until he's extradited, and that may not happen at all.  I would be quite interested to see how Assange answers questions about his communications with Roger Stone, given that Stone is still currently being investigated.


Stone was also not charged with any involvement with hacking or conspiracy with Wikileaks as of 3 days ago the article was published. Wikileaks denies, and Assange denies meeting with Stone.


This is the U.S. court documents on Stone's Mueller indictments. There was no back channel. Stone was just claiming that for attention before he got indicted. It shows evidence of no back channel with Wikileaks. And remember not one single American, not a single one, was charged with Russia Collusion in the Mueller indictments. That includes Stone.



> On or about December 24, 2017, Person 2 texted STONE, “I met [the head of Organization 1] for f_rst time this yea[r] sept 7 . . . docs prove that. . . . You should be honest w fbi . . . there was no back channel . . . be honest.” STONE replied approximately two minutes later, “I’m not talking to the FBI and if your smart you won’t either.”_



_https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...tment/d34c762c3e142f844c2b/optimized/full.pdf



This article also mentions Credico with his suppose back channel. 
https://www.newsweek.com/wikileaks-...e-says-mueller-indictment-braggadocio-1305370



This is an interview with Credico and should clear up the suppose back channel. 
_


----------



## kuwanger (Apr 14, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> Isn't Trump anti establishment? Wasn't that his whole angle?



Campaigning to be President of the United States is the figurative equivalent of trying to become head of the establishment.  There is no literal leader of the establishment.  Instead, there are many vying interests and parties all trying to obtain dominance.  The only part Trump is anti against in "the establishment" are the parts he can't control or manipulate, and I have no doubt Trump thought Presidents had a lot more power--his complaints about Obama were those of a rival King in power--which means he could sway many and outright order others.  In that regard, there is "so much winning" for him.

As for his base...  As almost always, those in power use the peons at the bottom as useful idiots and figuratively or literally discard them when they're no longer useful.  The best useful idiots are, of course, the ones too stupid to realize that little is really promised, are accepting even if nothing is delivered, and believe your lies for your policies not done but claimed done or the evil of others that stop those policies even when you're literally the one stopping those polices.  In all this, nothing sways them from supporting and defending you.  It's why you want to be as extreme as possible from the very beginning because if you ever do obtain power, you want to know that no matter how out there you are you'll always have people defending you.


----------



## notimp (Apr 14, 2019)

Let me take the edge off of the term useful idiots. 

I just watched an interview with Bertrand Russel (Anti establishment by necessity, not by choice or birth..  ) in which he vehemently complains, that the problem with politics will always be the following:

There are the ones, who make their living on the "enragedness" of the less well educated. And you cant do anything about it, because thats their entire stick.  Now to Russel thats the entire injustice and irrationality of human development (killed pretty much every scientist that made any worth while discovery for the first 1400 years of our existence..  ), the "forces you cant control".
He sees in them a grave injustice, but also part of democracy...(fill in the rest of the argument).

Now - if thats a given. And you cant do much about it, the term "useful idiot" really looses much of the idiot sting, because those might actually be some of the people that achieve something, others might have not.

That they are "used" in some form by others, kind of also is a given in human societies, and as to the idiot part, no one can know all things, we are all ignorant towards other matters to some extent.

Useful idiot is more a self descriptive term for people being aware of using others in that regard. Its not a "thats whats wrong with the world - man" kind of thing. It just is. 

Bertrand Russel, very intersting figure - not for this thread, but for the other one (relationships of power between the corporate world and politics) - because, well - watch for yourselves. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb3k6tB-Or8


----------



## SG854 (Apr 14, 2019)

Tucker Carlson believe it or not is actually getting this right. The guy that people accuse of being part of the establishment and a shill for the corporations is actually allowed to talk about this truthfully, while other organizations don't. People that watch Fox News are better informed on Assange then any other mainstream news organization. No matter how many people hate to agree with Tucker Carlson or think its hilarious that he is a truth teller.


He is right that Assange's indictments has nothing to do with Russian Government no matter what they pretend. No proof that he hacked the emails or worked with the Russian Government. He was never charged these things in the past and isn't charged or indicted with Russia Collusion today. No mention of Russia at all in the indictment.



Here's one thing he didn't mention was the torture of Chelsea Manning by Obama, to try to get her to turn on Assange and lie, and say he helped her, but she refused. And they threw her back in solitary confinement. Obama was known to go hard against whistle blowers. He was a threat to national security. Your suppose to be mad at him and not Assange. James Comey said the DNC server wasn't hacked. You are on the side of the enemies that serve their corporate interests and of silencing real journalism if you want them to persecute Assange. They are throwing the Fake Russia Collusion narrative to get you to hate Assange. Its propaganda and manipulation.


----------



## kuwanger (Apr 14, 2019)

notimp said:


> Now to Russel thats the entire injustice and irrationality of human development (killed pretty much every scientist that made any worth while discovery for the first 1400 years of our existence..  ), the "forces you cant control".
> He sees in them a grave injustice, but also part of democracy...(fill in the rest of the argument).



As a species we've been killing scientists of one sort or another for a lot longer than 1400 years.  Forces you can't control is a whole other thing, but a large part of democracy is precisely the lack of democracy--what people actively espouse is not what those in power actually do even when they all say they agree.



notimp said:


> Useful idiot is more a self descriptive term for people being aware of using others in that regard. Its not a "thats whats wrong with the world - man" kind of thing. It just is.



I tend to disagree because self-descriptive would mean someone is actual aware of they're being used, which wouldn't likely result in themselves describing themselves as idiots.  Pawns which align with their own ends?  That describes just about anyone in any position of power that has certain levels of autonomy but is invariably under the power of others.  Having said, in reflection it's easy to see times in the past where one is a useful idiot to someone else, but that's a comment meant to at some level recognize how one is different now and wouldn't/isn't do the same thing.  My point is, I'm not really meaning it as an insult.  So, "it just is" is probably the biggest point.


----------



## notimp (Apr 14, 2019)

offtopic: Wrong Bertrand Russell interview. This is the one where he is mentioning the things I was refering to:


----------



## notimp (Apr 14, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> As a species we've been killing scientists of one sort or another for a lot longer than 1400 years. Forces you can't control is a whole other thing, but a large part of democracy is precisely the lack of democracy--what people actively espouse is not what those in power actually do even when they all say they agree.


Yet I'm a believer in representative democracy. Meaning, that the populous is too dumb to actually decide on matters you dont lay out in front of them in song and spiel, and let them discuss with their friends for two months to form an opinion on. (Or 'research', which they never do.. )

If you are talking about a thing like broken campaign promises... well. Yes.

On the other hand, there is an argument to be made f.e. that money currently buys too much political influence (especially in the US), which I'd say is fair to make. Simply from a campaign financing or lobbying kind of perspective.

You can even put this simpler. Man votes populist, if men be confused and not sure whats causing stuff. Simple. 
Populist is, telling people what they want to hear - on grounds, of selling them what they want to hear, so you get an exchangable benefit out of it. In one word - Trump. But he isnt an exception. He's just maybe the most prominent example.. 

Next thing he does, he is tweeting in plain language to the world, and all of a sudden people read his prose before they go to sleep, and have the cosey feeling, that the president speeks to them, in a language they know. (And not to the "arch nemesis" THA MEDIA..  ), and all of a sudden you have a salesman, that people will defend with their lives, because they now feel attended to by him, and part of something.

Nothing like that has been new (filmstar Ronald Reagan was the most popular US president by some accounts, Eisenhower wasn't that bright, neither were Bush jr., Clinton, ... ). Whats new is just that the tone changed, and that all notions of public decency have basically been shed. But since everyone on social media thinks, that its there, so they can talk to the world, and the world would talk to them specifically - it kind of fits, because in a sense - to them it has almost become "personal communication".


----------



## GBAer (Apr 15, 2019)

The man is a fucking moron.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Tucker Carlson believe it or not is actually getting this right.


Well that's a never-before-spoken sentence, rofl.

As shocking as it might be, I have to disagree with you.  Carlson is just speculating and praying that Assange's charges have nothing to do with Russia.  He doesn't know more than anybody else does right now, he's only filling air time.


----------



## cots (Apr 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Tucker Carlson believe it or not is actually getting this right. The guy that people accuse of being part of the establishment and a shill for the corporations is actually allowed to talk about this truthfully, while other organizations don't. People that watch Fox News are better informed on Assange then any other mainstream news organization. No matter how many people hate to agree with Tucker Carlson or think its hilarious that he is a truth teller.
> 
> He is right that Assange's indictments has nothing to do with Russian Government no matter what they pretend. No proof that he hacked the emails or worked with the Russian Government. He was never charged these things in the past and isn't charged or indicted with Russia Collusion today. No mention of Russia at all in the indictment.
> 
> Here's one thing he didn't mention was the torture of Chelsea Manning by Obama, to try to get her to turn on Assange and lie, and say he helped her, but she refused. And they threw her back in solitary confinement. Obama was known to go hard against whistle blowers. He was a threat to national security. Your suppose to be mad at him and not Assange. James Comey said the DNC server wasn't hacked. You are on the side of the enemies that serve their corporate interests and of silencing real journalism if you want them to persecute Assange. They are throwing the Fake Russia Collusion narrative to get you to hate Assange. Its propaganda and manipulation.



It doesn't matter if Assange didn't collude with Russia. Just like with Trump even if an investigation is done the Liberals won't accept the outcome (if it happens to not align with their own viewpoint). Assange used to be a Liberal hero, but you shouldn't expect anyone with floating standards that is prone to stab you in the back when they are done using you for their own personal agenda to be able to reason logically. I really hope I never become "popular" in any Liberal circles. If I do I suppose I would use it to make as much money as quickly as I can to prepare for the eventual backstabbing and betrayal that would follow.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 15, 2019)

GBAer said:


> The man is a fucking moron.



He is. And I laughed for some reason at that. Duh Dur Dur what is a Wikileaks? Duh I’m a dummy.

This Video is hilarious. He colluded with Russia and the evil that Russia did was expose corruption in the U.S. Russia is so evil! How dare they let the American people know how corrupt their government is! I don’t like his attitude or personality so he should be punished by the law!




I think Lauren Chen has a good informative video on this. And if he is convicted of helping with the hack, no one is going to care. He expose war crimes. People are still going to see him do good.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Apr 18, 2019)

Xzi said:


> His decision to not publish leaks on the Russian government was motivated by fear of Putin. He fears the US _now_ because prosecutors are seemingly trying to go after him hard for military leaks.



I'd be interested in a discussion around this. Assange claimed he declined to publish the leaks for the following reasons.

WikiLeaks doesn't publish information that's already public.
WikiLeaks doesn't publish information it can't verify.
WikiLeaks doesn't publish information that it considers to be insignificant
The documents he declined were obtained in a hack in 2014, a significant amount of those documents has also been released in 2014 so we're really talking about documents that have not been published yet. I have not been able to find any news outlet that discusses whether the argument, that verification or significance could be an issue, has any merit. The documents have been released on a different platform in 2016 and gotten little attention which could be an indication that Assange statement does have merit, if it didn't the consequence would be that journalists failed to do their job and resorted to a smearing campaign.


----------



## brickmaker (Apr 18, 2019)

"The pen is mightier than the sword." Private letters/documents beyond their intended audience are always likely to stir emotion. The truth (or otherwise) openly released without a targeted niche audience can cause outrage and confusion. Knowledge without perspective and understanding can be dangerous. The safe opinion of truth - is what everyone says it is... unless you know it's not!


----------



## CorrinInTheHouse (Apr 18, 2019)

Ouch. What did he even "do" to deserve this?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2019)

I'm not nearly finished combing through it, but there is a lot of info about Wikileaks' cooperation with the GRU in the Mueller report.  Quite interesting.  There is also some redacted information about still ongoing matters involving Wikileaks.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Apr 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm not nearly finished combing through it, but there is a lot of info about Wikileaks' cooperation with the GRU in the Mueller report.  Quite interesting.  There is also some redacted information about still ongoing matters involving Wikileaks.



I read the WikiLeaks portion. He doesn’t come off looking good and it specifically mentions he wanted to hurt her for her actions in office.


----------



## notimp (Apr 23, 2019)

He probably did. Hes pretty much a little bit of an asshole. So am I, if you believe the popular opinion about my account here on gbatemp. 

The thing is, it shouldnt influence legal proceedings. It shouldnt even influence his legal political refugee status.

What you could learn based on that example is, that "public opinion" is a "soap opera version of reality" - that gets constantly manipulated (PR, marketing, advertising), because it is played by different political actors.

Over the long term, journalistic outlets (not all of them, just in mass) and "democracy" should level that out again, but in the short term, you are f*cked.  You usually believe the most emotional story.

Why do political actors manipulate the public opinion? Because they get away with stuff, that isnt legal - that way. Stuff, thats "a little on the line".

Whats "legal" isnt an absolute - its just separation of power. So everyone tries to push the line - and then public option tells them basically - when its too much. 


Now - there is this thing that the media is 'better' later on in a stories lifecycle. F.e. right now there are newsstories out there, where a former embassy staffer refutes the "Assange behaved like a prick, and played football in the halls" line (which was uttered by the president of a country, mind you) - which many of us called out as a lie - because -

- it isn't legally relevant. And if a president of a country gives a press statement in front of cameras, thats a targeted smear campaign ("Assange doesnt look so good, after hearing this.."), then its very likely, that he does this in absence of actually more striking arguments.

So public opinion is played - always - is what I am saying, and is a lousy indicator of who is right, or what is just.

Just in general.

So if you never quite leave the public soap opera level of politics you are only having half the fun. 


If you need a primer on how PR works, people usually refer you to "Wag the dog" 
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/

Do that, and dont end up in Alex Jones territory, or an avid RT fan - because the fist one is just evangelical nonsense, and the second one PR from the other side.. 

Use reputable media sources if you can. Follow stories, after they lose popularity. And don't bash anyone that makes a wrong call in the first 5 hours after a story breaks. Those are the basics. 

Now even the - "but Assange was just a Journalist, a publisher" tagline isnt entirely true, but it became true over time. What he did was definitely activism. But it was also journalism. His pedigree was that of a hacker, in this case - he didn't hack.

How that (journalism on international politics grounds) normally works is - that within a countries borders (lets say the US) govenment has contacts into all major journalistic outlets - that can pull stories on grounds of national interest. Thats a thing in every western democracy.

It isn't something that always will be pulled (far too much locomotion - in democracies, journalistic outlets are supposed to be able to act "independently" - most of the time), but its something that can be pulled.

And Wikileaks would have been a technical way around that. There are pros an cons for this. And in the end it was basically stripped of reputation, by - well, not much actually.  Assange might have been an asshole, but the material he published, wasnt fake.  They vetted sources. 

Also, and thats important as well, they largely stayed away from commentary. So they were not a political actor.


----------



## notimp (Apr 23, 2019)

Here is another video you could remember wikileaks and Assange by:




--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also Manning has been arrested. Again.

*Julian Assange Was Arrested. So Why Is Chelsea Manning Still In Jail?*
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...g-jail-julian-assange-wikileaks-investigation

Banana republic.


----------



## notimp (Apr 23, 2019)

Speaking of banana republic, in the US a group of heavily armed vigilantes just illegally captured and held 300 immigrants at gunpoint, for several days, and then published facebook videos, where they talk about, that shooting them would "safe so much time".

US police does nothing, because they consider them a "voluntier support group" on "the border effort".
src: https://www.democracynow.org/2019/4/23/right_wing_vigilantes_hold_migrants_hostage

Here is a message from the rest of the world - you guys... currently act unspeakably asinine.

Fox news on the topic:


> "it's all about safety - the safety of our American people, the safety of our border agents, and we want to achieve border security - plain and simple," he said.


How are your border children cages filling, btw? Swell? Insane.


----------



## Carnelian (Apr 27, 2019)

WW3 will probably comes before the release of IOSU (cancelled full exploit of the Wii U)


----------



## notimp (Apr 27, 2019)

Here is the US bragging about rigging the political System in the Ukraine. With international loans. Something that european media has always insisted on not having taken place:


I only care about the direct quote, you can turn off the babel of the commenter guy afterwards.


----------



## notimp (Apr 27, 2019)

EX CIA Director:

"We Lied we cheated, we stole. We even had training courses for it.
Reminds you of the glory of the american experiment."
(Meaning, american society is so much better, and again exeptional - in his mind.  Only the best of the best at Westpoint again, I see..  )



Source is probably a russian agit propaganda outlet, but its wonderful . nevertheless. 



> Pompeo said this at an event at Texas A&M University on April 15, 2019. Here is the official [full] State Department transcript: https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2019/04/291144.htm


edit: And indeed the full video. Watch it. 

edit2: Split into two parts. Speech and Q&A.

Talk was entitled "Why diplomacy matters." Bwahaha. Good one.. 

Money Quote:


> A few months back, the United States made the decision to leave the United Nations Human Rights Council. We did so because it had become under the control of authoritarians and dictators, people that didn’t really care about human rights. We made the decision to move our embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing facts on the ground. And our diplomats are even, as we speak, all across the world promoting American values and human rights all across the globe.


Wait, what?
(The guy is trying to sell Texan students in joining the US diplomatic core..  )

Gitmo, Waterbording, Extraordinary rendition flights, longest war in US history with Afghanistan, Trump on Kim Yong Un: "Why shouldnt I like him?" (src: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...y-shouldnt-i-like-him/?utm_term=.b7847896ef38), having Chelsea Manning arrested, held in solitary confinement for almost a year, presidential pardoning her, then imprisoning her again, for the same crime. Having currently a milita of private dudes on your borders, that "fake arrest 300 people" at gunpoint, and are best buddy buddies, with your police who dont dare to lay a hand on them. Meddling with other countries political and judicial structures, by leaveraging aid money, and having a current presidential candidate mention that he has done so in a public setting? Having your Ex-CIA director state directly after a recruitment speech, in a public setting, that the CIA trains members to lie, cheat and steal, on the governments money - and making a joke about it? In a speech entitled "Why diplomacy matters"?

You guys really don't give a flying f*ck anymore, dont you? 

Oh, yes, I know something. Extredite Assange. Thats a good idea.. 

But all is swell, because you have the best Pop Culture in the world? *wink*


Hey - its even become self aware! 

And of course, thank you for causing the world financial crisis in 2008 and having left the Paris climate accord, because 'you dont want to believe'.


----------



## notimp (May 20, 2019)

Extradition carousel?
Funny.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...e-sweden-files-request-arrest-rape-allegation

Manning has been arrested again, btw.


----------



## notimp (May 24, 2019)

Assange indicted under the US espionage act.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/assange-indictment.html


Why do I have to do all the follow up stuff on stories.

Why are you all just interested in completely maddening discussions about which parenting style is best (or about people 'killing' babies), and virtue signaling opportunities, mixed with "my opinion is very important - because its mine".

Facebook and Insta really have made you something else.

Is this a politics forum or...

When are you starting to see, that, only reacting to emotional clickbait. Only having an opinion about stuff where facts dont mater, and never following up on stories, over the long term - makes you stupid as societies.

Oh - Huawei gets dismantled by trade sanctions - what does this mean for my phone!?


----------



## SG854 (May 24, 2019)

notimp said:


> Assange indicted under the US espionage act.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/assange-indictment.html
> 
> 
> ...


Too many topics to keep up on.


----------



## notimp (May 24, 2019)

But 100 replies in a day, when somone asks - should beating children be illegal. I mean...

Also, nothing personally - certainly not against you. But dont you see whats happening structurally here?

And now, let me guess. its the medias fault?



(Again, not directed against you, or anyone in particular.  )

edit: The next "media is biased" thread I'll enter with a societies need gatekeepers of information, or they become mindless mobs - stance.


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2019)

notimp said:


> Assange indicted under the US espionage act.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/assange-indictment.html
> 
> 
> Why do I have to do all the follow up stuff on stories.


I came here to post this story, but I'm glad you did first.  And without any drama/snark while posting it. 

Anyway, my thoughts are that nobody is really going to see this as a first amendment issue any more.  The Mueller report is fairly damning for Assange, and it seems as though both sides of the political aisle dislike him at this point for different reasons.  Though I do question if the Trump administration's motive in this is not only to see justice served, but also to prevent certain information from coming to light.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 16, 2019)

Bumping this because there's relevant news that broke yesterday.  Ecuador concluded that Assange has ties to Russian Intelligence.



			
				Washington Monthly said:
			
		

> These stunning details come from hundreds of surveillance reports compiled for the Ecuadorian government by UC Global, a private Spanish security company, and obtained by CNN. They chronicle Assange’s movements and provide an unprecedented window into his life at the embassy. They also add a new dimension to the Mueller report, which cataloged how WikiLeaks helped the Russians undermine the US election.
> 
> The security logs noted that Assange personally managed some of the releases “directly from the embassy” where he lived for nearly seven years. After the election, the private security company prepared an assessment of Assange’s allegiances. That report, which included open-source information, concluded there was “no doubt that there is evidence” that Assange had ties to Russian intelligence agencies.



Assange's refusal to publish leaks on the Russian government makes total sense now.


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Bumping this because there's relevant news that broke yesterday.  Ecuador concluded that Assange has ties to Russian Intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> Assange's refusal to publish leaks on the Russian government makes total sense now.


Very interesting for the investigation on a Russian collusion in the 2016 elections.
Julian Assange isn't the free speech messiah we all thought.


----------



## MeAndHax (Jul 16, 2019)

Hide and seek champion 2019


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 17, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Assange's refusal to publish leaks on the Russian government makes total sense now.



I don't wanna come off as defending the guy but we had this discussion before and I'm really interested whether how much there is to this assertion.
Assange claims WikiLeaks doesn't publish information that has already been published or information that it deems insignificant.
Half the documents have already been published in 2014, the other half was "eventually quietly published online elsewhere, to almost no attention or scrutiny", as the article says.
So, here's what I read into it.

either the unreleased documents were insignificant and Assagen was right, that's why they haven't gotten attention or scrutiny
or journalists as a whole, all over the world, are so bad at their jobs that they can only decide whether to give something attention based on the channel the information has leaked through
Right now, I think the latter is less likely but I'd be really interested in a journalists laying out what the information in those documents was and a discussion around their significance, ideally including a reflective section on why journalism has failed here if he arrives at the conclusion that the information was significant.

At this point we can say that Assange has had a personal vendetta against Hillary, I won't hold it against him personally as I can see how Assange would want to prevent Hillary to become president after what happened with Manning. However, he did compromise WikiLeaks mission with that.

With regards to coordination with Russians the Washington Monthly article is really lacking in information and I would have loved for them to be more specific. They're asserting coordination with Russians because he sent a message that he is preparing information for release as soon as he received it, that's being a useful idiot for russian coordination at best but acting quickly doesn't establish coordination at all. We are also all aware by now that the source for the DNC leaks was Russians, so meetings with sources don't strike me as conspiratory either without additional information.

I believe there's much more to the story than that but I don't have the time to investigate myself and find the journalistic work on it to be quite bad for the most part.


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> or journalists as a whole, all over the world, are so bad at their jobs that they can only decide whether to give something attention based on the channel the information has leaked through



What the cables were for Manning:


> *(12:16:38 PM) bradass87:* or Guantanamo, Bagram, Bucca, Taji, VBC for that matter…
> 
> *(12:17:47 PM) bradass87:* things that would have an impact on 6.7 billion people
> 
> *(12:21:24 PM) bradass87:* say… a database of half a million events during the iraq war… from 2004 to 2009… with reports, date time groups, lat-lon locations, casualty figures… ? or 260,000 state department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world, explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective? […]


src: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/

What the cables where for the german Der Spiegel (most high profile weekly political newspaper in germany):



> “Angela ‚Teflon’ Merkel”: Die geheimen Depeschen des State Department enthüllen, wie kritisch amerikanische Diplomaten Deutschland betrachten: Sie fremdeln mit der Kanzlerin, Außenminister Westerwelle beurteilen sie abschätzig. Die US-Botschaft führt Informanten mitunter wie ein Nachrichtendienst seine Quellen. (S. 20)
> 
> “Ich entschuldige mich nicht”: Der US-Botschafter in Berlin, Philip Murphy, 53, über Merkel und seinen Zorn nach Bekanntwerden der diplomatischen Kabel (S. 26)
> 
> Der Guantanamo-Basar: Aus Furcht vor den Chinesen verweigerte Berlin die Aufnahme von uigurischen Häftlingen. (S. 28)


(If you cant read german, thats basically political embassy/administration level gossip. About how america saw germany, or how Berlin was afraid of chinese repercussions, if they had acted according with the publics morals)
src: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/index-2010-48.html

So context (which channel) matters. But this is just a quick sentiment, so not something that has to be necessarily true above better arguments..


----------



## SG854 (Jul 20, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> I don't wanna come off as defending the guy but we had this discussion before and I'm really interested whether how much there is to this assertion.
> Assange claims WikiLeaks doesn't publish information that has already been published or information that it deems insignificant.
> Half the documents have already been published in 2014, the other half was "eventually quietly published online elsewhere, to almost no attention or scrutiny", as the article says.
> So, here's what I read into it.
> ...


The withholding information about Trump and the right is just a weird connection they are making based on the article linked. Assange has said there is nothing he can release that will damage Trump that hasn’t been already said with media covering everything and attacking everything Trump says and does.



It’s really a non issue where Assange got his source from. If it’s accurate information then it’s accurate information. The source is irrelevant.


Like I said in an earlier post here, the great evil Russia did if true was expose political corruption in the Hilary campaign and the DNC. And they should be held accountable for serving the American people by exposing corruption.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 20, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It’s really a non issue where Assange got his source from. If it’s accurate information then it’s accurate information. The source is irrelevant.
> 
> Like I said in an earlier post here, the great evil Russia did if true was expose political corruption in the Hilary campaign and the DNC. And they should be held accountable for serving the American people by exposing corruption.


Ah yes, the good ol' "I'm fine with foreign interference in our elections as long as it benefits MY side" argument.  Democracy sure was nice while it lasted...


----------



## SG854 (Jul 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Ah yes, the good ol' "I'm fine with foreign interference in our elections as long as it benefits MY side" argument.  Democracy sure was nice while it lasted...


Assange gets his information from other sources. This is what he’s always done and was his job as a journalist of doing to expose corruption of governments. Where he gets his sources is irrelevant. 


He was exposing corruption in our own government. To say “democracy was sure nice while it lasted...” Stand back and think about your comment for a sec.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 20, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Assange gets his information from other sources. This is what he’s always done and was his job of doing to expose corruption of governments.


Except that one government he happens to be afraid of...



SG854 said:


> He was exposing corruption in our own government. To say “democracy was sure nice while it lasted...” Stand back and think about your comment for a sec.


He was picking a side and _selectively_ releasing information to support his own biases.  We've got enough blatantly partisan idiots doing that same thing already, so all Assange managed to do in the grand scheme of things was make himself irrelevant.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Except that one government he happens to be afraid of...
> 
> 
> He was picking a side and _selectively_ releasing information to support his own biases.  We've got enough blatantly partisan idiots doing that same thing already, so all Assange managed to do in the grand scheme of things was make himself irrelevant.


Isn’t selectively releasing information to support your side is what both parties already do? To damage the other side.


Is the information accurate? It was Hillary’s emails so it’s directly from her. So it’s not irrelevant.

And Assange has already said he has nothing about Trump that hasn’t already been said, so his information on him wouldn’t have much impact on the damage that has already been done and said by other media outlets.


Why are you so insistent at finding information and twisting it in a way to make Assange look bad? It’s like you’re on a mission to make him look bad.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 21, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The withholding information about Trump and the right is just a weird connection they are making based on the article linked. Assange has said there is nothing he can release that will damage Trump that hasn’t been already said with media covering everything and attacking everything Trump says and does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I‘m unaware that he may have held back Information on trump.

The information he supposedly held back on Russia was obtained in 2014 and half of it was released then, the other half was offered to WikiLeaks in 2016 and ended up being released elsewhere to little attention and scrutiny as some outlets say.

Assange Said WikiLeaks doesn’t release information that is already public or information that it deems insignificant.
So the question really is: was the unreleased half of the documents significant. If it was then you need to come up with an explanation of why you read news outlets that essentially will not give information attention if it’s been released on the equivalent of Vimeo instead of YouTube when it comes to government corruption.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Isn’t selectively releasing information to support your side is what both parties already do? To damage the other side.


Precisely.  Wikileaks claimed to be an unbiased source for all leaks, above the partisan fray.  It doesn't surprise me to see evidence proving otherwise, though.



SG854 said:


> Is the information accurate? It was Hillary’s emails so it’s directly from her. So it’s not irrelevant.


I said Assange made himself irrelevant by refusing to publish leaks on the Russian government on more than one occasion.  This has nothing to do with buttery males, and everything to do with the fact that Assange was essentially Putin's puppet.  The release of Hillary's (largely innocuous) e-mails just happened to be a by-product of Assange's relationship with the Russian government, and their mutual disdain for her.



SG854 said:


> Why are you so insistent at finding information and twisting it in a way to make Assange look bad? It’s like you’re on a mission to make him look bad.


I don't have to twist anything, the Ecuadorian embassy documents and security footage paint a very clear picture.  Ultimately it's the Trump administration now trying to prosecute him for stuff unrelated to his connections with Russia.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 21, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> I‘m unaware that he may have held back Information on trump.
> 
> The information he supposedly held back on Russia was obtained in 2014 and half of it was released then, the other half was offered to WikiLeaks in 2016 and ended up being released elsewhere to little attention and scrutiny as some outlets say.
> 
> ...


I trust Assange that the documents were insignificant.



I’m having a hard time understanding what you mean in your last paragraph so this next part might miss the point. But In the scenario of it being actually significant, I think everything would be posted on YouTube since that’s the site most people use and gets attention. Someone would’ve posted information on it.

I think the outlets other CNN/Fox and those types are what they are talking about when saying it’s being released on outlets with less attention. Why it goes on those news publications is probably because big outlets didn’t care about the information? So it was up to the lesser outlets to take up the information and write an article about it.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I trust Assange that the documents were insignificant.


Were the Panama papers also insignificant?

#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros. pic.twitter.com/tgeKfLuROn— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 5, 2016


Assange was a coward who was willing to throw away his integrity out of fear of Putin.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 21, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I trust Assange that the documents were insignificant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



YouTube would be WikiLeaks and Vimeo would be the site the documents actually were released on in the example.
Saying something has been released to little attention is to quite literally acknowledge Assange was correct that the information was insignificant unless journalists will not pay attention to genuine government documents if they aren’t served to them on a silver platter on the biggest platform, in which case you shouldn’t be listening to those journalists to begin with.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> YouTube would be WikiLeaks and Vimeo would be the site the documents actually were released on in the example.
> Saying something has been released to little attention is to quite literally acknowledge Assange was correct that the information was insignificant unless journalists will not pay attention to genuine government documents if they aren’t served to them on a silver platter on the biggest platform, in which case you shouldn’t be listening to those journalists to begin with.


If all Assange cared about was how much attention a story gets, that makes Wikileaks itself no better than Fox, CNN, or clickbait sites.  The fourth estate has been failing us for a while now, and it's just unfortunate to see supposedly "independent" outlets follow down that same path.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 21, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Being _true_ is not the only threshold for whether or not it's legal (or moral) to publish something.
> 
> Edit: Russia's illegal meddling in the 2016 election is also not a conspiracy theory. It's fact.


well now you are just a hypocrite.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Assange is a narcissist and an opportunist who helped adversaries of the US compromise the integrity of its presidential election.  He stopped being a "hero" the second he decided to push a political agenda rather than continuing to publish all leaks pertaining to illegal/unethical behavior in an independent manner.  Wikileaks transitioned from being a reliable source for leaks into just another tabloid rag years ago.


Exposing disgusting corruption from the Clintons is taking a side? Just how tribal are you?


----------



## SG854 (Jul 21, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> YouTube would be WikiLeaks and Vimeo would be the site the documents actually were released on in the example.
> Saying something has been released to little attention is to quite literally acknowledge Assange was correct that the information was insignificant unless journalists will not pay attention to genuine government documents if they aren’t served to them on a silver platter on the biggest platform, in which case you shouldn’t be listening to those journalists to begin with.


One thing the media is, is that it’s hungry to get as much dirt on Trump. If the media didn’t pick up those leaks then the information was so insignificant that they couldn’t get any juicy stuff from it. Either that or the information was already published which is why  they didn’t pick it up. 

And technically the unreleased information would be considered released even if it’s on a lesser site and means Assange didn’t withhold anything. It’s really up to the News publications if they want to pick up the story or not.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 21, 2019)

SG854 said:


> One thing the media is, is that it’s hungry to get as much dirt on Trump. If the media didn’t pick up those leaks then the information was so insignificant that they couldn’t get any juicy stuff from it. Either that or the information was already published which is why  they didn’t pick it up.
> 
> And technically the unreleased information would be considered released even if it’s on a lesser site and means Assange didn’t withhold anything. It’s really up to the News publications if they want to pick up the story or not.


I dont think you understand it, Trump = ratings and they can get people to talk about him all day. Very little cost to get people to just fight with each other about Trumps tweets, or aoc's tweets... they dont even know which countries are being bombed.


----------



## ArugulaZ (Jul 21, 2019)

Joe88 said:


> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737
> 
> He was kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy and was forcibly removed by police officers and arrested. He is heard shouting "the UK must resist the trump administration"
> The US has requested him to be extradited to the US to face charges https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/world/europe/julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuador-embassy.html
> ...



"The UK must resist Trump?" He helped get him elected!
Also, he's really got his Bobby Fischer/Howard Hughes crazy man look going on right there.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> Exposing disgusting corruption from the Clintons is taking a side? Just how tribal are you?


Ignoring blatant corruption in a foreign government to instead focus on exposing personal e-mails mostly related to planning a wedding is taking a side, yes.  Ultimately it's a moot point because 

Assange is now in jail, Hillary has never been formally charged with anything, and everybody in the Trump administration uses personal e-mail to send/receive classified information.  I'd love to see conservatives be consistent on ANYTHING for once, but we all know it isn't gonna happen.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Ignoring blatant corruption in a foreign government to instead focus on exposing personal e-mails mostly related to planning a wedding is taking a side, yes.
> 
> Assange is now in jail, Hillary has never been formally charged with anything, and everybody in the Trump administration uses personal e-mails to send/receive classified information.  I'd love to see conservatives be consistent on ANYTHING for once, but we all know it isn't gonna happen.


That is so wrong I dont even know where to begin, you might want to do a little research. Only thing accurate is that Hillary isnt in jail, the Clintons are much too integrated into the government to go to jail. Even Trump wont be going to jail, even if anything they accuse him of sticks. The democrats even had bots from a third arty that they claimed were Russians, not that the gop is any better or putin is much different than the Americans... only thing we can do is shine light on evil until its exposed enough to go away. You dont go pick the evil you hate less, you expose it all.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



ArugulaZ said:


> "The UK must resist Trump?" He helped get him elected!
> Also, he's really got his Bobby Fischer/Howard Hughes crazy man look going on right there.


wow, people really are super tribal. When people say things like this its pretty obvious you cant change their mind, im going to watch stranger things and smoke a joint. If im going to waste my time it may as well be doing something enjoyable lol.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 21, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> I dont think you understand it, Trump = ratings and they can get people to talk about him all day. Very little cost to get people to just fight with each other about Trumps tweets, or aoc's tweets... they dont even know which countries are being bombed.


That’s what got him elected. He’s knows that they grasp on to anything even make a story about him getting two scoops of Ice Cream. He knows how to play the media to get free coverage.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> That is so wrong I dont even know where to begin, you might want to do a little research. Only thing accurate is that Hillary isnt in jail, the Clintons are much too integrated into the government to go to jail.


If that information is wrong, you'll want to take it up with the Ecuadorian government and the Spanish security firm they hired which concluded that Assange clearly has ties to Russian intelligence.

There were multiple months-long investigations into Hillary.  The reason she isn't in jail is because they couldn't find evidence of any crime, not for lack of trying.



kevin corms said:


> Even Trump wont be going to jail, even if anything they accuse him of sticks.


Even though the illegal hush money payments have already been proven beyond a doubt, I fear you're correct.  And if we don't charge Trump for his blatant criminal activity, the next guy looking to use the presidency for blanket immunity is going to be so much worse.  Far smarter and far more subtle, but worse.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 21, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> well now you are just a hypocrite.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


If you're going to call me a hypocrite from something I posted three months ago, could you at least explain how?


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 21, 2019)

SG854 said:


> One thing the media is, is that it’s hungry to get as much dirt on Trump. If the media didn’t pick up those leaks then the information was so insignificant that they couldn’t get any juicy stuff from it. Either that or the information was already published which is why they didn’t pick it up.
> 
> And technically the unreleased information would be considered released even if it’s on a lesser site and means Assange didn’t withhold anything. It’s really up to the News publications if they want to pick up the story or not.



The unreleased information was obtained in 2014, I doubt there's a lot on Trump in there, if at all. Assange chosing not to release the unreleased half of the documents cache on his platform is used to infer russian allegiance.



Xzi said:


> If all Assange cared about was how much attention a story gets, that makes Wikileaks itself no better than Fox, CNN, or clickbait sites. The fourth estate has been failing us for a while now, and it's just unfortunate to see supposedly "independent" outlets follow down that same path.



You got something confused there. I'm not making the argument Assange cares how much attention his leaks get. YOU are making the argument that his refusal to publish the documents directly lead to the leak getting less attention, if you weren't you wouldn't have a problem with Assange leaving the leak for a different platform to publish for the reasons he stated.
The whole argument around Assange refusing to publish the unreleased half of the russian documents cache from 2014 is that it has gotten less attention on a different platform and how this is a calculated play not to damage the russian government while no one can explain how a story on government corruption will only get attention if it's posted on a specific site. In reality you're making the argument that journalists in general are just silly mouthbreathers, somehow I doubt that.



Xzi said:


> Ignoring blatant corruption in a foreign government to instead focus on exposing personal e-mails mostly related to planning a wedding is taking a side, yes. Ultimately it's a moot point because



The "blatant corruption" you refer to has been ignored by journalists as well as it has gotten "little attention". Please do go on and make your argument how the journalistic class at large is a russian asset.



Xzi said:


> If that information is wrong, you'll want to take it up with the Ecuadorian government and the Spanish security firm they hired which concluded that Assange clearly has ties to Russian intelligence.



Thanks Captain Obvious. I wonder how he's supposed to obtain material without having ties to anyone. You're making the quintessential "guilt by association" argument, which to be fair isn't a hard leap to make when it comes to Russia.
I have previously given my opinion on the article that you chose to ignore. In my estimation preparing information for release as soon as it is obtained does not establish coordination and that is really the only example of coordination the article gave, without further information it makes him a useful idiot for the russians at best.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> YOU are making the argument that his refusal to publish the documents directly lead to the leak getting less attention, if you weren't you wouldn't have a problem with Assange leaving the leak for a different platform to publish for the reasons he stated.


No, that's not the argument I'm making.  I'm only arguing that Assange failed to live up to his mission statement for Wikileaks, thus making himself and the outlet obsolete in the process.



supersonicwaffle said:


> The "blatant corruption" you refer to has been ignored by journalists as well as it has gotten "little attention". Please do go on and make your argument how the journalistic class at large is a russian asset.


I said "blatant corruption in a foreign government," specifically referring to leaks on the Russian government and Putin.  These things have not been ignored by the media at large, only by Assange in order to keep himself out of danger.



supersonicwaffle said:


> Thanks Captain Obvious. I wonder how he's supposed to obtain material without having ties to anyone. You're making the quintessential "guilt by association" argument, which to be fair isn't a hard leap to make when it comes to Russia.


Wikileaks never would have built any rapport with the general public if Assange had been transparent about his ties to state-sanctioned Russian intelligence activities.  It's completely counter-intuitive to what their supposed goals were.



supersonicwaffle said:


> I have previously given my opinion on the article that you chose to ignore. In my estimation preparing information for release as soon as it is obtained does not establish coordination which is really all the article you linked said, without further information it makes him a useful idiot for the russians at best.


On that we agree, in the end he amounted to little more than a useful idiot.  Putin clearly held all the power in the relationship.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> No, that's not the argument I'm making. I'm only arguing that Assange failed to live up to his mission statement for Wikileaks, thus making himself and the outlet obsolete in the process.



I agree that he compromised WikiLeaks' mission by going directly after Hillary.



Xzi said:


> I said "blatant corruption in a foreign government," specifically referring to leaks on the Russian government and Putin. These things have not been ignored by the media at large, only by Assange in order to keep himself out of danger.



From the article you linked here:



Xzi said:


> Assange's refusal to publish leaks on the Russian government makes total sense now.





> The Russian cache was eventually quietly published online elsewhere, to almost no attention or scrutiny.



I think at this point it would be wise for you to compile a list of which points in the articles you post you think are incorrect to have a basis for discussion.



Xzi said:


> Wikileaks never would have built any rapport with the general public if Assange had been transparent about his ties to state-sanctioned Russian intelligence activities. It's completely counter-intuitive to what their supposed goals were.



Because being identified as a WikiLeaks source has worked so well for Chelsea Manning, Assange should just be up front and transparent about them. Got it.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> I agree that he compromised WikiLeaks' mission by going directly after Hillary.


Wrong, by siding with one particular government and deciding to withhold any leaks on that government.  IDGAF that he published Hillary leaks, I'm only interested in the source of those leaks and how that source compromised Assange.



supersonicwaffle said:


> The Russian cache was eventually quietly published online elsewhere, to almost no attention or scrutiny.


I guess that's not surprising in the grand scheme of things, considering we were at the height of election season and the Russian government wasn't one of the candidates.  I'm sure the attention on the Hillary leaks helped to keep it buried, too.



supersonicwaffle said:


> Because being identified as a WikiLeaks source has worked so well for Chelsea Manning, Assange should just be up front and transparent about them. Got it.


Chelsea Manning was an individual whistleblower of the sort that we were lead to believe Wikileaks partnered with exclusively.  I don't know how you expect the GRU would have been punished, what with them being a large clandestine organization with the backing of the Russian government.  But yeah, of course Assange wouldn't have wanted to trash his own image by revealing that connection.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Wrong, by siding with one particular government and deciding to withhold any leaks on that government. IDGAF that he published Hillary leaks, I'm only interested in the source of those leaks and how that source compromised Assange.



How does the source change the validity of original unaltered documents?
Why does the source need to compromise Assange in your scenario? He had enough personal reasons to go after Hillary without the influence of another entity.



Xzi said:


> I guess that's not surprising in the grand scheme of things, considering we were at the height of election season and the Russian government wasn't one of the candidates. I'm sure the attention on the Hillary leaks helped to keep it buried, too.



How would it have changed anything if it was released on WikiLeaks then? That just further invalidates the argument.
You're also dismissing that the leaks haven't gotten attention anywhere in the world.



Xzi said:


> Chelsea Manning was an individual whistleblower of the sort that we were lead to believe Wikileaks partnered with exclusively. I don't know how you expect the GRU would have been punished, what with them being a large clandestine organization with the backing of the Russian government. But yeah, of course Assange wouldn't have wanted to trash his own image by revealing that connection.



Oh it's not just about punishment but you can rest assured that giving up sources, whoever they are and whatever motives they hold, will catapult WikiLeaks into irrelevancy it's professional suicide for Assange. But I guess it would be nice for all the people who are more concerned with the motives behind publishing something rather than the published information itself.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Why does the source need to compromise Assange in your scenario? He had enough personal reasons to go after Hillary without the influence of another entity.


The fact that you admit he did this for personal reasons rather than to further Wikileak's mission is compromising enough.  But in addition to that, when the source is a powerful one, it always demands quid pro quo.  In this case, burying any leaks relevant to the Russian government.



supersonicwaffle said:


> How would it have changed anything if it was released on WikiLeaks then? That just further invalidates the argument.
> You're also dismissing that the leaks haven't gotten attention anywhere in the world.


It wouldn't have necessarily gotten any more attention on Wikileaks, but releasing it would've shown a commitment to their own mission.  That's also not the only set of leaks they refused to publish relevant to the Russian government/Putin, I already posted the Tweet where Assange claims the release of the Panama papers was funded by George Soros (total horseshit).



supersonicwaffle said:


> Oh it's not just about punishment but you can rest assured that giving up sources, whoever they are and whatever motives they hold, will catapult WikiLeaks into irrelevancy it's professional suicide for Assange. But I guess it would be nice for all the people who are more concerned with the motives behind publishing something rather than the published information itself.


Wikileaks has become irrelevant regardless, and Assange is probably going to jail for life.  My concern is having a truly neutral source for ALL leaks and whistleblower information to be published, not selectively so based on the website owner's biases.  Also, who knows how many other sources Assange decided to sell out to the Russian government.  Maybe that information will be made public with time.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The fact that you admit he did this for personal reasons rather than to further Wikileak's mission is compromising enough.



I admitted to it right after the Mueller report was released. How this invalidates the leaked information in unaltered documents he has released on Hillary however is beyond me but you do you.



Xzi said:


> But in addition to that, when the source is a powerful one, it always demands quid pro quo. In this case, burying any leaks relevant to the Russian government.



You're literally making no sense and just make up hypotheticals that fit your scenario. If going after Hillary was a mutual interest there's no quid pro quo required.
As a matter of fact the argument is that using his platform was paramount to gaining the attention the russians desired.



Xzi said:


> That's also not the only set of leaks they refused to publish relevant to the Russian government/Putin, I already posted the Tweet where Assange claims the release of the Panama papers was funded by George Soros (total horseshit).



I'd be happy if you could provide a source that credibly claims that the Panama Papers were offered to WikiLeaks and they refused it. Until then I'll just assume you keep pulling shit out of your ass.



Xzi said:


> My concern is having *a* truly neutral source for *ALL* leaks and whistleblower information



I can see how a person with socialist tendencies prefers one monolithic monopolistic platform controlled by fallible humans that can be manipulated into acting a certain way.
Meanwhile here in the real world regular people prefer to have competition and divide power.


----------



## smf (Jul 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> My concern is having a truly neutral source for ALL leaks and whistleblower information to be published, not selectively so based on the website owner's biases.



I have a problem with wikileaks indiscriminate release policy, which puts peoples lives at risk. Even when they supposedly attempted to redact, their incompetence (or maybe it was done on purpose) meant that the redaction was easily undone by pushing ctrl-A.

You can't have a truly neutral source, even the people who are supplying the information aren't neutral. You'd be better off lobbying politics than trying to fix wikileaks mess.



supersonicwaffle said:


> I can see how a person with socialist tendencies prefers one monolithic monopolistic platform controlled by fallible humans that can be manipulated into acting a certain way.
> Meanwhile here in the real world regular people prefer to have competition and divide power.



People only want competition because they benefit in the short term from companies tearing their selves apart trying to compete & the dream that they can be the supreme overlord. Socialists see the negative effects of all of that outweigh the positives (just not for the top 1%).


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> I admitted to it right after the Mueller report was released. How this invalidates the leaked information in unaltered documents he has released on Hillary however is beyond me but you do you.


It doesn't invalidate the leaks, but it also doesn't make them any less innocuous.  IMO Comey's announcement less than ten days from the election that Hillary was still under investigation did far more damage to her chances of winning.



supersonicwaffle said:


> You're literally making no sense and just make up hypotheticals that fit your scenario. If going after Hillary was a mutual interest there's no quid pro quo required.


It's the Russian government dude, they basically operate like any mobsters.  Meaning nothing you take from them is free.  Of course, it might've only been _implied_ that any leaks Assange published about them would mean he drinks polonium tea, but he clearly received the message regardless.



supersonicwaffle said:


> I'd be happy if you could provide a source that credibly claims that the Panama Papers were offered to WikiLeaks and they refused it.


They did publish it, but only after several other outlets had, and it doesn't change the fact that Assange was parroting Putin's dismissals for a reason.



supersonicwaffle said:


> I can see how a person with socialist tendencies prefers one monolithic monopolistic platform controlled by fallible humans that can be manipulated into acting a certain way.  Meanwhile here in the real world regular people prefer to have competition and divide power.


The fuck are you talking about?  I'd love to have multiple neutral hosts of leaked info/whistleblower info, but as it stands now, we don't even have one.  And people largely ignore the big bombshells like the Panama papers anyway.  Just too much complacency in the world today.


----------



## Missing Number (Jul 21, 2019)

with a name like that, he is probably a harry potter villain.....


----------



## notimp (Jul 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Wrong, by siding with one particular government and deciding to withhold any leaks on that government. IDGAF that he published Hillary leaks, I'm only interested in the source of those leaks and how that source compromised Assange.


Siding, was used, material was relevant for Wikileaks to stay 'relevant'.

Here is the basic gist of it.

He kind of was an 'intelligence service for hire/for the public' in how everything turned out.

This was seen as very problematic, by a few national actors early on.

(Remember, if you release through an established media outlet, the state gets to have a say - so there is direct influence. Paper might still print a story, but they might then be shunned - until some personal is replaced. Even in western democracies. Editiorial offices, are still in a certain states jurisdiction. Wikileaks very quickly was not (mirrors 'n stuff).)

He got the most reach in english speaking countries. So russian interests might have leaked a few things - just to use the publicity draw related to the outlet at the time.

What he did in his personal life - doesnt matter, legally.
What he did or did not do (in terms of withholding a leak to release it when it had more impact) - doesnt matter, because thats not what he's accused of.

He probably was on the receiving end of a public smear campaign.
He probably wasnt the best suited to deal with sudden fame.
He maybe might have held a few grudges in relation to some political actors (remember, embassy, public statements of politicians and heads of secret service, unclear international state of law).

None of this matters in terms of what he is indicted for.

Public is lit and unable to differentiate between media persona, and person accused of crimes (non- crimes rather) as f*ck. Which shows, character assassination works.

He probably released a few too many stories 'bad' for western governments in a row - which also turned public sentiment.

More than that? I dont see it.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 21, 2019)

smf said:


> I have a problem with wikileaks indiscriminate release policy, which puts peoples lives at risk. Even when they supposedly attempted to redact, their incompetence (or maybe it was done on purpose) meant that the redaction was easily undone by pushing ctrl-A.
> 
> You can't have a truly neutral source, even the people who are supplying the information aren't neutral. You'd be better off lobbying politics than trying to fix wikileaks mess.



This is the same critisicm that the Panama Papers publishers had for a WikiLeaks style release BTW.



smf said:


> People only want competition because they benefit in the short term from companies tearing their selves apart trying to compete & the dream that they can be the supreme overlord. Socialists see the negative effects of all of that outweigh the positives (just not for the top 1%).



That's not the entirety of the argument of my argument though. You tackled the other half very well in your reply to Xzi with regards to neutrality. Monopoles massively increase the risk of corruption with only very limited means to overcome problems.



Xzi said:


> It doesn't invalidate the leaks, but it also doesn't make them any less innocuous.



Leaks revealing corruption are never innocuous, no one has a problem with that unless they have a problem with causing harm to certain individuals or campaigns because the truth is revealed. You're showing your true face.



Xzi said:


> It's the Russian government dude, they basically operate like any mobsters. Meaning nothing you take from them is free. Of course, it might've only been _implied_ that any leaks Assange published about them would mean he drinks polonium tea, but he clearly received the message regardless.



You would have to demonstrate how Russia has the means to physically harm him in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for that ridiculous claim to have any merit.



Xzi said:


> They did publish it, but only after several other outlets had, and it doesn't change the fact that Assange was parroting Putin's dismissals for a reason.



I was unable to verify that WikiLeaks has published something from the Panama Papers leak.
I'm not engaging in dismissing original documents published by an organization that has been accused over and over of publishing too much because of stupid hot takes on twitter that may or may not align with any number of deplorables. I am however willing to criticize Assange and have done so.
For what it's worth WikiLeaks heavily criticized the Panama Papers publishers because they released only a very small portion of the leaks, but they're still not transparent enough for your taste.



Xzi said:


> The fuck are you talking about? I'd love to have multiple neutral hosts of leaked info/whistleblower info, but as it stands now, we don't even have one. And people largely ignore the big bombshells like the Panama papers anyway. Just too much complacency in the world today.



If you have several hosts there's no need to be neutral unless you expect journalists to be incapable of browsing more site than one. If the hoster doesn't act in the source's interests by redacting too much there's nothing stopping the source from offering the same leaks to another hoster.
We're talking about unaltered documents, the only thing that matters is THAT they get released (with the caveat of minimizing physical harm) not HOW or WHERE they get released.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2019)

notimp said:


> What he did in his personal life - doesnt matter, legally.
> What he did or did not do (in terms of withholding a leak to release it when it had more impact) - doesnt matter, because thats not what he's accused of.
> 
> He probably was on the receiving end of a public smear campaign.
> ...


I didn't claim to be making a legal case against him, only a case against what he claimed Wikileaks stood for.  I think now that his connection with Russian intelligence has been revealed, there would be a legal case to be made against him for facilitating foreign interference in our elections, but I don't expect the Trump administration will be eager to pursue such charges.


----------



## notimp (Jul 21, 2019)

I don't think he needs his character to be analyzed a few more times, in the situation he is in. First - kind of get him some justice (actual one, not the lock him away for life kind), then shun him for the rest of his life if you must. But simply executing another example here isn't whats warented.

His most widely known leaks (the ones he is accused of having 'conspired in getting' currently) actually were in the public interest. Imho.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Leaks revealing corruption are never innocuous, no one has a problem with that unless they have a problem with causing harm to certain individuals or campaigns because the truth is revealed. You're showing your true face.


Provide specific examples of "corruption" from the e-mails and we'll discuss them.  I'm not really interested in defending Hillary, but nor did I spot anything particularly damning when skimming the leaks.



supersonicwaffle said:


> You would have to demonstrated how Russia has the means to physically harm him in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for that ridiculous claim to have any merit.


They had enough access to deliver things to him, thus they had enough access to assassinate him in any number of different ways if so desired.



supersonicwaffle said:


> I was unable to verify that WikiLeaks has published something from the Panama Papers leak.


Yeah Google wasn't really that helpful on this subject, I was just giving them the benefit of the doubt.  But if they refused to publish it altogether, that's even more damning.



supersonicwaffle said:


> For what it's worth WikiLeaks heavily criticized the Panama Papers publishers because they released only a very small portion of the leaks, but they're still not transparent enough for your taste.


Yeah, TV media tends to avoid anything negative about their own corporate sponsors.  But if Wikileaks published none of it, then TV media still had them beat.



supersonicwaffle said:


> If you have several hosts there's no need to be neutral unless you expect journalists to be incapable of browsing more site than one. If the hoster doesn't act in the source's interests by redacting too much there's nothing stopping the source from offering the same leaks to another hoster.
> We're talking about unaltered documents, the only thing that matters is THAT they get released (with the caveat of minimizing physical harm) not HOW or WHERE they get released.


Sounds like we're saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently.  The hosts need to be neutral in that they publish everything they receive, and not only what conforms to their preexisting biases.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Provide specific examples of "corruption" from the e-mails and we'll discuss them. I'm not really interested in defending Hillary, but nor did I spot anything particularly damning when skimming the leaks.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

Or Donna Brazile sending the the town hall questions to Hillary beforehand.



Xzi said:


> They had enough access to deliver things to him, thus they had enough access to assassinate him in any number of different ways if so desired.



Please show a concrete scenario how he would be killed without starting WW3 and bypassing security screening. Simply being in a room with someone doesn't mean you can kill them without consequence.



Xzi said:


> Yeah Google wasn't really that helpful on this subject, I was just giving them the benefit of the doubt. But if they refused to publish it altogether, that's even more damning.



Let me spell this out for you: THEY WEREN'T OFFERED TO HIM.
Can we move on now?
They likely weren't offered because WikiLeaks has the reputation of releasing too much. There was a public spat between the two publishers over it.



Xzi said:


> Yeah, TV media tends to avoid anything negative about their own corporate sponsors. But if Wikileaks published none of it, then TV media still had them beat.



You can't publish something you have no posession over.
If you're referring to the material from 2014 he declined to publish you've yet to provide examples of why it was significant enough to divert capacity from the DNC leak and how that makes a difference when it can be published on a different platform.



Xzi said:


> Sounds like we're saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently. The hosts need to be neutral in that they publish everything they receive, and not only what conforms to their preexisting biases.



You can't go around slamming WikiLeaks for what they said with regards to the Panama Papers and then turn around and say the need to publish EVERYTHING.
The leaks contain information that can get people killed, WikiLeaks has repeatedly come under fire for releasing too much of the leaks for that reason. It's why leaks can't be released all at once and need to be prepared.
On the other hand only a small portion of the Panama Papers leaks were published, that was WikiLeaks' main ciriticism.

EDIT:
The argument that everything needs to be released for the sake of neutrality is stupid in more way than one because the platforms would essentially be made obsolote and you would have to do nothing more than upload it to google drive or somewhere else and distribute the link as a source.


----------



## notimp (Jul 21, 2019)

Muller report on election meddling, which all of the recent Wikileaks orchestrated!11!!! is based on:

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

This also is the sole source for:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-exclusive-documents/index.html

Which is a hackjob. Takes "and then some hackers visited Assange and talked for a few hours" and produces a "so he orchestrated everything behind scenes!111!!" out of it.

Seems that there is a statement on record on him saying that Wikileaks would be against Clinton winning, because she is a - and I quote: a "Bright, Well Connected, Sadistic Sociopath" ... which isn't necessarily something that you could indict him for.

I'll read the Muller report when I have time - seems like an entertaining read..


----------



## smf (Jul 21, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Monopoles massively increase the risk of corruption with only very limited means to overcome problems.



No, humans increase risk. More organisations means there is less regulation.

Monopolies often exist in capitalism as well.


----------



## notimp (Jul 21, 2019)

smf said:


> No, humans increase risk. More organisations means there is less regulation.
> 
> Monopolies often exist in capitalism as well.


Facebook is not being regulated. No one cared for people having the right not to be individually manipulated around voting season. Only when facebook aspired to give people their own currency - suddenly, many institutions demanded regulation. People dont matter. Configurations to set yourself in a position you'll always win - regardless of outcome, apparently do.

There often are monopolies in capitalism - and it has a tendency to produce duopolies at least - but if you become too big - you ought to be split up. Imho.

The regulators here wouldnt even know where to begin. They are inadequate (no one believes in the political sphere that much anymore).

(Quick assessment, not necessarily correct.  )


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 21, 2019)

smf said:


> No, humans increase risk. More organisations means there is less regulation.
> 
> Monopolies often exist in capitalism as well.



I thought it was understood that we aren’t talking about the jungle book’s economy?

Yes, there are monopoles in capitalism but they are neither desired nor mandated.


----------



## notimp (Jul 21, 2019)

I've heard before though, that the 'trend' of the hour is, to try to make organizations as big as possible (even with political blessing), so they 'could compete with the other big ones (think China)'. Kind of sounds like flawed logic to me, but apparently its popular. 

So both positions are correct here I suppose.


----------



## smf (Jul 21, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> I thought it was understood that we aren’t talking about the jungle book’s economy?



Why did you mention it then?



supersonicwaffle said:


> Yes, there are monopoles in capitalism but they are neither desired nor mandated.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole?

The people creating the monopoly desire it & they aren't necessarily wrong. Interfering also has unintended consequences https://www.businessinsider.com/att-breakup-1982-directv-bell-system-2018-02?r=US&IR=T


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 21, 2019)

smf said:


> Why did you mention it then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because of your passive aggressive nonsense response of „No, humans increase risk“ as if that made any sense. 

The mere fact that it was broken up should tell you that it’s not desirable for the system.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
> 
> Or Donna Brazile sending the the town hall questions to Hillary beforehand.


Nobody needed an e-mail leak to see that the DNC was biased against Bernie, but bias or no, ultimately he just didn't win enough states in the primary.  If older Democratic voters hadn't been so short-sighted, Sanders would be president right now.  The Donna Brazile thing there's really no excuse for.



supersonicwaffle said:


> Please show a concrete scenario how he would be killed without starting WW3 and bypassing security screening. Simply being in a room with someone doesn't mean you can kill them without consequence.


Lol, you act like Putin hasn't been successful in targeted assassinations in nearly every part of Europe already.  They don't even need to be in the same room, they could've just packed anthrax or another aerosol into the deliveries.  It's not like they'd publicly claim credit, and Ecuador doesn't have enough of a military to be a threat to Russia.



supersonicwaffle said:


> Let me spell this out for you: THEY WEREN'T OFFERED TO HIM.
> Can we move on now?
> They likely weren't offered because WikiLeaks has the reputation of releasing too much. There was a public spat between the two publishers over it.


Or perhaps it wasn't offered to him because they didn't trust Assange to release the info on Putin and his oligarchs.  We can only speculate.



supersonicwaffle said:


> You can't go around slamming WikiLeaks for what they said with regards to the Panama Papers and then turn around and say the need to publish EVERYTHING.
> The leaks contain information that can get people killed, WikiLeaks has repeatedly come under fire for releasing too much of the leaks for that reason. It's why leaks can't be released all at once and need to be prepared.
> On the other hand only a small portion of the Panama Papers leaks were published, that was WikiLeaks' main ciriticism.


I'm not saying you can't make redactions for the sake of protecting vulnerable individuals, but Assange protecting Putin in order to protect himself is something entirely different from that, is it not?  And while the TV media didn't release the entirety of the Panama papers, a number of online outlets did.



supersonicwaffle said:


> The argument that everything needs to be released for the sake of neutrality is stupid in more way than one because the platforms would essentially be made obsolote and you would have to do nothing more than upload it to google drive or somewhere else and distribute the link as a source.


Nonsense, there's no guarantee of anonymity on Google, and I doubt they'd be willing to host sensitive documents for very long.  Particularly in regards to leaks about the US government, you'd have FBI/CIA agents at your door within a day.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nobody needed an e-mail leak to see that the DNC was biased against Bernie, but bias or no, ultimately he just didn't win enough states in the primary. If older Democratic voters hadn't been so short-sighted, Sanders would be president right now. The Donna Brazile thing there's really no excuse for.



I have no interest in using the Donna Brazile thing as an excuse. What you quoted was a direct response to you asking for corruption the documents Assange received from Russia exposed.
Since you seem to think that this particular leak wasn't needed then go ahead at go through the material that he refused to publish at the time and make your case why it was more important and time sensitive in 2016 with the elections coming up. I've said that I would be interested in such a thing for months and that's were the actual interesting discussion would be.

Bonus points if you can explain how the practices and communication surrounding fundraising for political campaigns are not in the public's interest.



Xzi said:


> Lol, you act like Putin hasn't been successful in targeted assassinations in nearly every part of Europe already. They don't even need to be in the same room, they could've just packed anthrax or another aerosol into the deliveries. It's not like they'd publicly claim credit, and Ecuador doesn't have enough of a military to be a threat to Russia.



This is going nowhere. Now you're equating assassinating someone who is walking the streets with someone living in an embassy for security. The articles you linked have shown the crude methods with which russians delivered the documents (literally showing up with ski masks and requiring a guard break protocol) and you expect them to be able to deliver anthrax that way ...

If he exposed himself to such a risk to be killed by the russians wouldn't it be commendable to take that risk in order to reveal corruption? Or will your tribal insticts not allow you to do that because the dirt was on the DNC?



Xzi said:


> Or perhaps it wasn't offered to him because they didn't trust Assange to release the info on Putin and his oligarchs. We can only speculate.



Yes and that's fair. It's why it's good to have more of these WikiLeaks type organizations, ultimately they need to appeal to sources, be willing to work with them and not every single source will agree with one organization's methodology. It's also why guilt tripping them into not working with specific sources is a really bad idea, the platforms should be working with as many as are willing to bring the leaks to light.



Xzi said:


> I'm not saying you can't make redactions for the sake of protecting vulnerable individuals, but Assange protecting Putin in order to protect himself is something entirely different from that, is it not? And while the TV media didn't release the entirety of the Panama papers, a number of online outlets did.



This again? Please do go on and show the contents of the material he refused and how them being released on a different site protected putin. Produce something to substantiate your claims, until then we'll just keep running in circles.

With regards to the Panama Papers, they were leaked to a German newspaper who asked for help from the International Council of Investigative Journalism. I cannot find any mention that the leaks were ever fully released apart from releasing a list of the affected entities, I'd appreaciate if you could link it.

I'd be surprised if they were fully released, as Süddeutsche Zeitung (the newspapers it was leaked to) specifically mentioned that they see themselves as an extension of the prosecution in this case and will only release a few documents because in many countries they couldn't be used in court as they've been obtained illegally.



Xzi said:


> Nonsense, there's no guarantee of anonymity on Google, and I doubt they'd be willing to host sensitive documents for very long. Particularly in regards to leaks about the US government, you'd have FBI/CIA agents at your door within a day.



That's why I said Google Drive _or somewhere else_. A release like this requires nothing more than uploading the files to a webserver or fileserver somewhere, for instance in the TOR network. You literally do not even adress my point and just fixate on Drive, good job!


----------



## Xzi (Jul 22, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> I have no interest in using the Donna Brazile thing as an excuse.


I didn't say you were using it an as excuse, I said there was no excusing that type of behavior (receiving the questions ahead of time).  I wouldn't really consider it any worse than the type of shenanigans which Trump and Fox News engage in, though.



supersonicwaffle said:


> What you quoted was a direct response to you asking for corruption the documents Assange received from Russia exposed.
> Since you seem to think that this particular leak wasn't needed then go ahead at go through the material that he refused to publish at the time and make your case why it was more important and time sensitive in 2016 with the elections coming up.


I said the leak wasn't necessary to see the DNC's obvious bias against Bernie, that doesn't mean I was opposed to it being published.  That said, if Assange went to the trouble of selling out to a foreign intelligence agency to gather this info, I would think it'd be pretty easy to get something like Trump's tax returns as well.  Just to give the illusion of being non-partisan, if nothing else.



supersonicwaffle said:


> This is going nowhere. Now you're equating assassinating someone who is walking the streets with someone living in an embassy for security. The articles you linked have shown the crude methods with which russians delivered the documents (literally showing up with ski masks and requiring a guard break protocol) and you expect them to be able to deliver anthrax that way ...


They accepted the packages, did they not?  Anything could've been inside.



supersonicwaffle said:


> If he exposed himself to such a risk to be killed by the russians wouldn't it be commendable to take that risk in order to reveal corruption? Or will your tribal insticts not allow you to do that because the dirt was on the DNC?


If he was willing to refuse their demands for quid pro quo and publish dirt on the Russian government anyway, absolutely, that would've been commendable.  It's not commendable to give in to one's own biases and sell out to a particular government agency simply because it serves one's own interests at the moment.



supersonicwaffle said:


> Yes and that's fair. It's why it's good to have more of these WikiLeaks type organizations, ultimately they need to appeal to sources, be willing to work with them and not every single source will agree with one organization's methodology. It's also why guilt tripping them into not working with specific sources is a really bad idea, the platforms should be working with as many as are willing to bring the leaks to light.


Sure, we agree on that.  The thing is, information presented to you by intelligence agencies is not the same as leaks.  Those are the very entities which leakers/whistleblowers are meant to be exposing.



supersonicwaffle said:


> This again? Please do go on and show the contents of the material he refused and how them being released on a different site protected putin. Produce something to substantiate your claims, until then we'll just keep running in circles.


I've already posted Assange's bullshit claims that the information on Putin contained within the Panama papers was false and orchestrated for release by George Soros.  He couldn't have possibly been any more transparent in showing where his loyalties lie.  If you want to ignore clear cut evidence like that, there's nothing I can post which will convince you. 

Roger Stone is facing charges relevant to his cooperation with Wikileaks and the GRU right now.



supersonicwaffle said:


> That's why I said Google Drive _or somewhere else_. A release like this requires nothing more than uploading the files to a webserver or fileserver somewhere, for instance in the TOR network. You literally do not even adress my point and just fixate on Drive, good job!


That's a decent plan, but exposure on a wide, public scale would still require a greater infrastructure and effort.


----------



## smf (Jul 22, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Because of your passive aggressive nonsense response of „No, humans increase risk“ as if that made any sense.



It wasn't passive aggressive. If you don't understand something then you should ask.



supersonicwaffle said:


> The mere fact that it was broken up should tell you that it’s not desirable for the system.



It's not desirable by the people who made the decision, it doesn't prove anything about whether breaking up companies actually benefited the majority of people. The US seems to be based around making money for the top 1% off the backs of hard working people & corruption is rife.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I didn't say you were using it an as excuse, I said there was no excusing that type of behavior (receiving the questions ahead of time). I wouldn't really consider it any worse than the type of shenanigans which Trump and Fox News engage in, though.



Fair enough. Guess I just misunderstood, my apoliges.



Xzi said:


> If he was willing to refuse their demands for quid pro quo and publish dirt on the Russian government anyway, absolutely, that would've been commendable. It's not commendable to give in to one's own biases and sell out to a particular government agency simply because it serves one's own interests at the moment.



Look I repeatedly asked you which dirt he refused to publish and to make a compelling argument why it's a problem that he left it for a different organization to publish.
All indications are that "the dirt" on russia was pretty insignificant because it hasn't received any attention when it was published elsewhere, furthermore, his time was probably better spent working on the DNC leak because of time sensitivity with the upcoming election.

Please make an argument instead of just claiming the same thing over and over again.



Xzi said:


> They accepted the packages, did they not? Anything could've been inside.



Yes and unless I have overlooked it the article doesn't mention how the security screening of the package was handled after it was accepted.
For all we know it would require Russia to blow up the whole embassy to kill him with a package that got into the lobby.



Xzi said:


> Sure, we agree on that. The thing is, information presented to you by intelligence agencies is not the same as leaks. Those are the very entities which leakers/whistleblowers are meant to be exposing.



If you can verify their validity, they're the exact same thing, these are unaltered documents. The worst that could happen is that they may omit some context but making the argument that these documents shouldn't be released because the source was an intelligence agency is asinine.



Xzi said:


> I've already posted Assange's bullshit claims that the information on Putin contained within the Panama papers was false and orchestrated for release by George Soros. He couldn't have possibly been any more transparent in showing where his loyalties lie. If you want to ignore clear cut evidence like that, there's nothing I can post which will convince you.



Sure, your citicism here is justified, I've said as much earlier. It's just that I fail to see it's relevancy, especially in light of the other cricism he and WikiLeaks had for how the Panama Papers leak was handled, they called for more transparency.
Your argument is only compelling if you consider the platform the documents are hosted on to be more relevant than the contents of the documents, which I disagree on. For all I care the DNC leaks could be published on the site of the GRU itself as long as journalists are able to verify the documents.
I also agreed that he was directly targeting Hillary's campaign which compromised WikiLeaks' mission. Trump was a benefactor, there's no denying that and I feel like that is your problem.
You can make the case that he had enough personal reasons to go after Hillary and the enemy of your enemy is not neccessarily your friend.



Xzi said:


> That's a decent plan, but exposure on a wide, public scale would still require a greater infrastructure and effort.



The "greater effort" your mention is literally sending the download link to a handful of relevant journalists.
Sure in a world where you can't expect journalists to look at platforms other than WikiLeaks that is a valid ground of concern.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



smf said:


> It wasn't passive aggressive. If you don't understand something then you should ask.



It should be fairly obvious that pointing out that humans are involved with running monopilies is a non-statement. I'm not going to mistake Trump for a sea lion. If you want to make a point then make it instead of throwing something out in the hopes that someone asks you nicely about it.



smf said:


> It's not desirable by the people who made the decision, it doesn't prove anything about whether breaking up companies actually benefited the majority of people. The US seems to be based around making money for the top 1% off the backs of hard working people & corruption is rife.



No one has made the case that the decision has benefited people. Looking at the result is irrelevant to make the point that the decision was that it's not desirable for the government to enable monopolies in their economic system.
Yes corruption is a thing in capitalism, sure, no one is saying it's an antidote for corruption, however, not having mandated concentration of all power lowers the effect of corruption in single sectors.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"


----------



## smf (Jul 22, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> It should be fairly obvious that pointing out that humans are involved with running monopilies is a non-statement.



That wasn't my point, it's the humans that cause the corruption. You can have corruption in a monopoly or when you don't have a monopoly. It's oversight by enough people who want to fight corruption that fixes it. If there is corruption in the body performing the oversight, or they are overworked because of so many competitors then you'll still have corruption without a monopoly.

I thought it was a simple point, but you are intent on not getting it.



supersonicwaffle said:


> No one has made the case that the decision has benefited people.



You're saying it's desired in capitalism and bad mouthing socialism. So if you're not making that case, then why are you trying to persuade people on a course of action that won't benefit them but will benefit the top 1%?


----------



## Xzi (Jul 22, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Look I repeatedly asked you which dirt he refused to publish and to make a compelling argument why it's a problem that he left it for a different organization to publish.


This is a logical rabbit hole we don't really need to venture down.  Why couldn't he have left the Hillary leaks for a different organization to publish?  Why publish any leaks at all if you can just leave that job to someone else?



supersonicwaffle said:


> Yes and unless I have overlooked it the article doesn't mention how the security screening of the package was handled after it was accepted.
> For all we know it would require Russia to blow up the whole embassy to kill him with a package that got into the lobby.


We can't possibly know how it would've turned out had Assange gone against Putin's interests.  Instead, he made for a good lapdog the entire time.



supersonicwaffle said:


> If you can verify their validity, they're the exact same thing, these are unaltered documents. The worst that could happen is that they may omit some context but making the argument that these documents shouldn't be released because the source was an intelligence agency is asinine.


If you want mass information warfare by proxy, then yeah, having third-party outlets publish whatever is given to them by the world's intelligence agencies is the quickest means to get there.



supersonicwaffle said:


> Your argument is only compelling if you consider the platform the documents are hosted on to be more relevant than the contents of the documents, which I disagree on. For all I care the DNC leaks could be published on the site of the GRU itself as long as journalists are able to verify the documents.


That would make verification so much harder to accomplish.



supersonicwaffle said:


> The "greater effort" your mention is literally sending the download link to a handful of relevant journalists.


It's a complete crapshoot as to whether any mainstream journalist will publish information about sensitive leaks.  Which is a big part of why Wikileaks came to be in the first place.  It's just unfortunate that they lost sight of their own mission at some point.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 22, 2019)

smf said:


> That wasn't my point, it's the humans that cause the corruption. You can have corruption in a monopoly or when you don't have a monopoly. It's oversight by enough people who want to fight corruption that fixes it. If there is corruption in the body performing the oversight, or they are overworked because of so many competitors then you'll still have corruption without a monopoly.



Sure. But just saying everything humans involve in bears risk is just a non-statement because it ignores that there's varying levels of risk. Without a monopoly, much less a concetrated monopoly on everything the consequences of corruption are much less significant.



smf said:


> You're saying it's desired in capitalism and bad mouthing socialism. So if you're not making that case, then why are you trying to persuade people on a course of action that won't benefit them but will benefit the top 1%?



I was obviously refering to the decision to break up the monopoly of AT&T. I bad mouth socialism because it has never been demonstrated to be a viable solution that hasn't corrupted the ruling class which had much more severe consequences for the general population.


----------



## smf (Jul 22, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Without a monopoly, much less a concetrated monopoly on everything the consequences of corruption are much less significant.



The most significant consequence of corruption in my lifetime was the 2008 global financial crisis.

Your argument seems to be that you don't like socialists and therefore everything to do with them is bad.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This is a logical rabbit hole we don't really need to venture down. Why couldn't he have left the Hillary leaks for a different organization to publish? Why publish any leaks at all if you can just leave that job to someone else?



YOU do need to go down that rabbit hole if you are making the argument that he withheld / refused damning information specifically because he wanted to protect Putin. I'm not making that argument.



Xzi said:


> We can't possibly know how it would've turned out had Assange gone against Putin's interests. Instead, he made for a good lapdog the entire time.



True, we can't know that, and he may have accepted his role as a useful idiot or Putin's lapdog as you call it in order to receive the obtained documents. All I'm saying is that jumping to conclusions isn't a wise thing to do.



Xzi said:


> That would make verification so much harder to accomplish.



It would make it as hard as the verification process as it is for the recipient of any other leaked document by these sources. As the veracity of the DNC documents has not been question IIRC, it means that the verification proccess was successful for Assange. (I may be wrong on that one but I really just can't recall it)



Xzi said:


> It's a complete crapshoot as to whether any mainstream journalist will publish information about sensitive leaks. Which is a big part of why Wikileaks came to be in the first place. It's just unfortunate that they lost sight of their own mission at some point.



Let me quote yourself on that one.



Xzi said:


> If you want mass information warfare by proxy, then yeah, having third-party outlets publish whatever is given to them by the world's intelligence agencies is the quickest means to get there.





Xzi said:


> My concern is having a truly neutral source for ALL leaks and whistleblower information to be published, not selectively so based on the website owner's biases.



So what is it? Having a Platform that releases this sort of information or not because it'll end up in an information war. Is sending documents to Journalists just a crapshot or are they just handling things responsibly? Earlier you said that all leaked documents need to be released to ensure neutrality and then walked it back when you were made aware of the consequences of doing that.

I'm not sold that it should make a difference to us whether leaking information is for transparency or for damage, if someone wants it to be leaked it will be leaked.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



smf said:


> The most significant consequence of corruption in my lifetime was the 2008 global financial crisis.
> 
> Your argument seems to be that you don't like socialists and therefore everything to do with them is bad.



See I'm a bit older and can remember what happened in the USSR its sattelite states. I also grew up in a family that fled a socialist state.
Sure you can make the argument that the financial crisis was worse than that, but we can just agree to disagree on that one.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 22, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> YOU do need to go down that rabbit hole if you are making the argument that he withheld / refused damning information specifically because he wanted to protect Putin. I'm not making that argument.


You're making the argument that all the information he withheld was irrelevant and might as well have been left for other outlets.  But that same argument could be subjectively applied to any leaks.



supersonicwaffle said:


> So what is it? Having a Platform that releases this sort of information or not because it'll end up in an information war.


Having a platform which releases information from leakers/whistleblowers specifically is important.  Having a platform to act as a proxy for releases of information coming from intelligence agencies is not important.  As you've pointed out, they can release that information themselves.  It's up to individuals whether to believe those agencies or not, but other platforms don't need to aid them by giving them an extra layer of obfuscation.



supersonicwaffle said:


> Is sending documents to Journalists just a crapshot or are they just handling things responsibly? Earlier you said that all leaked documents need to be released to ensure neutrality and then walked it back when you were made aware of the consequences of doing that.


Again the distinction must be made between mainstream journalists and independent journalists who primarily operate online.  The latter are a lot more likely to report on any credible leaks, but they're also much less likely to have a large audience.

And no, I never walked back the idea that all leaked documents should have a platform for release, redacting certain sensitive information to protect vulnerable individuals is not the same thing as withholding release of the information altogether.


----------



## smf (Jul 22, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> See I'm a bit older



How do you know that?



supersonicwaffle said:


> I also grew up in a family that fled a socialist state.



Well that explains your prejudice.

_A socialist state is to be distinguished from a multi-party liberal democracy governed by a self-described socialist party, where the state is not constitutionally bound to the construction of socialism. In such cases, the political system and machinery of government is not specifically structured to pursue the development of socialism._


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're making the argument that all the information he withheld was irrelevant and might as well have been left for other outlets. But that same argument could be subjectively applied to any leaks.



I repeatedly said that *in all likelihood* it has been irrelevant because it has gotten little to no attention in an effort to stop people drawing *potentially *false conclusions from that.
I also said that I believe this to be likely because the alternative would be that journalists ignored it because it was posted on a different platform.
You're misrepresenting my argument, although I will admit without going back and looking through it myself that I may have worded it not clear enough in a post here or there.



Xzi said:


> Having a platform which releases information from leakers/whistleblowers specifically is important. Having a platform to act as a proxy for releases of information coming from intelligence agencies is not important. As you've pointed out, they can release that information themselves. It's up to individuals whether to believe those agencies or not.



You're just attributing more relevancy to a platform than I believe is neccessary, I think we can agree to disagree on that one.



Xzi said:


> Again the distinction must be made between mainstream journalists and independent journalists. The latter are a lot more likely to report on any credible leaks, but they're also much less likely to have a large audience.



Just for clarification: Are you saying that mainstream journalists will not ignore leaks if they are posted on WikiLeaks but will ignore it if the leaks are reported on and produced by independant journalists?
Because that would literally mean mainstream journalism is oficially dead (at least even more than it already is, I guess).



Xzi said:


> And no, I never walked back the idea that all leaked documents should have a platform for release, redacting certain sensitive information to protect vulnerable individuals is not the same thing as withholding release of the information altogether.



And that's where you don't have much of a leg to stand on in terms of accusing Assange as he has been repeatedly criticized for handling leaks irresponsibly by releasing too much. On top of that, if he was Putin's lapdog, I wouldn't trust him with what the redaction process in the first place, come to think of it, you should probably be happy that he refused it for that reason.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



smf said:


> How do you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not a prejudice. The term socialism has been dropped by the social democracy movement specifically because it's an untenable economic system. You're a century late to change the narrative on that one.
As for social democratic parties, more power to them.
To quote from the Wikipedia article you linked:



> *Socialist Party* is the name of many different political parties around the world. All of these parties claim to uphold some form of socialism, though they may have very different interpretations of what "socialism" means.



They're just operating under different definitions of socialism which may or may not include what is commonly refered to as socialism, i.e. the seizure of means of production.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 22, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Just for clarification: Are you saying that mainstream journalists will not ignore leaks if they are posted on WikiLeaks but will ignore it if the leaks are reported on and produced by independant journalists?
> Because that would literally mean mainstream journalism is oficially dead (at least even more than it already is, I guess).


Not exactly, I'm saying there's a chance mainstream journalists will ignore _any_ leak, or the editor will refuse to publish it.  Particularly if it's bad for one of the outlet's corporate sponsors.



supersonicwaffle said:


> And that's where you don't have much of a leg to stand on in terms of accusing Assange as he has been repeatedly criticized for handling leaks irresponsibly by releasing too much. On top of that, if he was Putin's lapdog, I wouldn't trust him with what the redaction process in the first place, come to think of it, you should probably be happy that he refused it for that reason.


Well, I never claimed Assange was good at that part of the job, I was only advocating for a platform which might be better at it.  Fair enough, though.


----------



## notimp (Jul 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Not exactly, I'm saying there's a chance mainstream journalists will ignore _any_ leak, or the editor will refuse to publish it. Particularly if it's bad for one of the outlet's corporate sponsors.


Then find another outlet.

Find multiple of them.

Of course, only if we arent post privacy by then.. 

The 'has not responsibly redacted' and 'lapdog' arguments are overplayed. Wikileaks had limited means, Wikileaks was used. Financing was turned off for them beforehand - that could have granted more independence.

All things considered, they werent that important. Doesnt matter, that you can or should do anything you want to Assange. The case against him currently doesnt hold up (from the information we know).


----------



## Xzi (Jul 22, 2019)

notimp said:


> All things considered, they werent that important. Doesnt matter, that you can or should do anything you want to Assange. The case against him currently doesnt hold up (from the information we know).


AFAIK the case against him is entirely about the Chelsea Manning leaks, and it's hard to deny Wikileaks' role in publishing those.  Do I think Assange should be jailed for that role?  No, but it's largely irrelevant what I think.  The US military doesn't fuck around when it comes to this stuff, and they have the law on their side here.  Whether a British court ultimately decides to extradite him or not is a different matter.

Meanwhile, it seems Roger Stone will be the one taking the majority of the heat for cooperation with Wikileaks and GRU in relation to the Hillary/DNC leaks.  Among other criminal charges against him, of course.


----------



## notimp (Jul 22, 2019)

Military doesnt matter here in my opinion. You pull Assange from an embassy, because you want to produce a public image. Thats what will last. That will be one of the lasting legacies of the Trump administration.

Fuck with us - you are a broken - incarcerated - dead man. Shooting your political enemies would appear more humane.

I know no intelligent person on earth, that thinks that Assange is just a traitor.

So we are talking about if that should be the lasting effect on our democracies. At least in some fashion. 

Doesnt matter what I think either, btw.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> AFAIK the case against him is entirely about the Chelsea Manning leaks, and it's hard to deny Wikileaks' role in publishing those.



Wouldn’t publishing the documents be protected under the first amendment?

IIRC they’re making the case that Assange told Manning how to obtain the documents, thus having an active role in „hacking“ which is their basis for charging him with espionage.

EDIT: I believe I‘m starting to remember more clearly.
Assange basically explained how to use wget to Manning which is a command line tool for web downloads that is much more flexible and efficient than using a webbrowser. The prosecution portrayed wget as a hacker tool which lead to the whole Linux community feeling very badass for being considered hackers by the US government.
I believe Chelsea Manning had access to all the leaked files, they were simply copied.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> Military doesnt matter here in my opinion. You pull Assange from an embassy, because you want to produce a public image.


Nobody had the authority to remove him by force.  The embassy gave him the boot after months of complaining about Assange's sloppy behavior, so he kind of fucked himself over in that regard.  Biting the hand that feeds and all that.


----------



## notimp (Jul 23, 2019)

And thats bull. New government was favourable to US interests, got fed with 4.2 billion USD IMF credit line, revoked diplomatic immunity. Then called police to remove him by force - which is what objectively happened. (Last part.) Dont dance around this.  Its not 'lets deconstruct a story' - im interested in public perception and letter of the law here. And removed by force was, what was reported.

If assange played football in the halls, or drank too much - again is human interest PR angle, doesnt matter a thing. You dont revoke political immunity for that. Never. Ever.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> And thats bull. New presidency was favourable to US interests, got fed with 4.2 billion USD IMF credit line, revoked diplomatic immunity. Then called police to remove him by force - which is what objectively happened. (Last part.) Dont dance around this.  Its not 'lets deconstruct a story' - im interested in public perception and letter of the law here. And removed by force was, what was reported.


Well yeah, I suppose I worded that poorly.  Rather I meant that without Ecuador first evicting him/giving permission, British police wouldn't have been able to extract him by force from the embassy.



notimp said:


> IF assange played football in the hals, or drank too much - again is human interest PR angle, doesnt matter a thing. You dont revoke political immunity for that. Never. Ever.


Assange is Australian, so the Ecuadorian embassy wasn't required to grant his request for safe harbor in the first place, let alone allow him to stay as long as they did.  If he was smart, he would've made arrangements to flee elsewhere long ago, as an embassy obviously isn't suited for permanent residence.


----------



## notimp (Jul 23, 2019)

Australia looked the other way - they are a five eyes partner, they had no interest to have anything to do with Assange from the get go. Don't use that as an excuse. That never was an option for anything. Countries can grant political immunity to whoever they deem in need for it.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> Australia looked the other way - they are a five eyes partner, they had no interest to have anything to do with Assange from the get go. Don't use that as an excuse. That never was an option for anything. Countries can grant political immunity to whoever they deem in need for it.


I wasn't suggesting he flee to Australia, I was only pointing out his nationality for context on why the Ecuadorian embassy was not obligated to take him in.  As for political immunity, is that something they granted to him?  It was my understanding they only granted him Ecuadorian citizenship, and revoked that citizenship when he was evicted.


----------



## notimp (Jul 23, 2019)

They granted poiitical asylum. Thats not obligatory by any means - but any country - and any embassy can grant it. No one is saying that granting A. asylum wasn't political. 

In fact, in germany they had a few members of oppositional parties lobby for political asylum as well. So had other countries.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> They granted poiitical amnesty. Thats not obligatory by any means - but any country - and any embassy can grant it. No one is saying that grantin A. amnesty wasn't political.


Sure, it's well within their power to grant it, but in that same vein, it's well within their power to revoke it too.  Assange was surely aware of this, so he should've known better than to piss off his Ecuadorian hosts at every opportunity.


----------



## notimp (Jul 23, 2019)

No - not relevant.

Answer me this question. Can you at the same time harbor a high level political refugee from the country that was mainly responsible for granting you a credit line of 4.2 billion USD from the IMF. The country that actually lobbied for you getting it this time around? Not very likely. That Assange was a PITA for embassy staff, much more likely is an entirely manufactured lie, when it comes to political reasoning.

He might have very well been one - but thats not a reason to revoke political asylum. Not a proper one. Its just one thats in accordance, with the public smear campaign, that hit A. like a freighttrain, as soon as he started to go on the conference circuit (actually acting like a political entity). Its perfectly consistent for the 'public character' you've been reading about - but its entirely unimportant in the case.

Also - odd coincidences. Actual video of him pacing around alone in his living quaters leaked on the net int he year before he was ousted, after the embassy replaced the security company responsible for 'protecting' the embassy (also under new government direction), and you have an eye whitness account that told press, that the "personal behavioral reasons" given for the revocation were bull. Now all of that is circumstantial and doesnt matter, but neither does a pretty BS reason for why asylum was revoked.

I mean look at what you are saying here. 'Assange better should have double checked his daily behavior on embassy ground, so he wouldnt get imprisoned for life in a high security american prison.'?

Thats not proper, doable, likely, manageable, ...

You are literally egging people on here. You wouldnt be able to do that. Why should he? And in the end - it most likely never mattered.

If I have to explain to you, that governments lie, but that its also interesting to look at 'how they lie' - because if its just 'spin' - the actual story is still there, how would you react?

How would you react if I tell you that Equador made UK authorities 'sign a 'poisoned' contract' by having them agree to not turn A. over to a country that enacts the death penalty. By doing so, and by actually NAMING it in all the official statements of why A. was ousted - they engaged in a political move as well.

Neither the UK, nor the US would have liked for that to also be part of the public conversation - so the move points towards 'intent', if it wasn't made entirely naively - which it probably wasn't (how often did you have someone make up a contract...). This could be seen as the revocation of the political asylum being part of a counterdeal, and equador not acting on it entirely in good faith.

Why is it so important - because whatever happens to Assange next, it doesnt happen 'cleanly'. So either the US have to go around the letter of the law and import him to a state where he doesnt face the death penalty - or Sweden would have to agree to being used in a 'merry go round' exchange program to kill a journalist/publisher/whistleblower sympathizer. Or the UK would to have simply break international law.

But he played football and acted weird? Completely irrelevant. In fact its very likely what we'd call a 'smoke granade' in a discussion. There to cause smoke in a diversion attempt. Nothing of substance.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Sure, it's well within their power to grant it, but in that same vein, it's well within their power to revoke it too.  Assange was surely aware of this, so he should've known better than to piss off his Ecuadorian hosts at every opportunity.



Should've known better and be on your best behaviour because we can revoke your asylum.
For some reason I believe you would raise a major stink about this in a different context and for a good reason I might add.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 23, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Should've known better and be on your best behaviour because we can revoke your asylum.
> For some reason I believe you would raise a major stink about this in a different context and for a good reason I might add.


As I said, he shouldn't have expected permanent residence at an embassy regardless of his behavior.  Finding a way to travel to Ecuador and taking asylum in the country at large would've been a much better option.  Even putting aside his close ties to the GRU, Russia almost certainly would've taken him in too, given that they took in Snowden.  For whatever reason, Assange simply failed to plan ahead, and that's what ultimately led to his eviction and arrest.


----------



## notimp (Jul 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> As I said, he shouldn't have expected permanent residence at an embassy regardless of his behavior. Finding a way to travel to Ecuador and taking asylum in the country at large would've been a much better option.


Was discussed early out. Attempts to grant him political immunity on the way to an airport were not granted politically. He was someone that was too public of a figure, to handle this entirely diplomatically. He still had value. He sat in that embassy to 'repent' for the rest of his life - until the Trump administration had the brilliant idea to get him to the US for a show trial. Dems blocked against that - until the Hillary email thing happened, at least thats the gossip on the streets.  Then they also said *fuck it*. (Statements on record of representatives of the Democratic National Committee on the matter were demonstratively 'naively neutral' after the process to get him to the US was started, so neutral in fact that they seemed uninformed/unconcerned even. But they werent.).

For what its worth, I think even Assange would have preferred asylum in any south american country - rather than a UK embassy after some time. Lack of sunlight would be maybe the first potential motivator.


----------



## notimp (Jul 23, 2019)

Show trial maybe has to be argued as well. You dont extradite a political enemy (both parties now), to set him free after a trial, where national interests are concerned. Even in western democracies.

You kind of make sure that he gets a non sympathetic judge. Basically. And gets accused of multiples of hundreds of years of offenses.

Also - the indictment is for him maybe linking Manning a tutorial on how to use grep, and maybe attempting to crack a password from a hash, which he failed at. Hold on gbatemp tutorial section.

Also, laws in use to indict him are so old, that people 'cracking passwords' was something that only soviet spies did in the cold war - so pre internet.

So he basically gets treated like a spy of a country you are in conflict with, for arguably doing something that was in the public interest (the pre hillary email stuff he is legally accused of). While not being a spy - but only a 'useful idiot' when it comes to certain international interests. Thats basically it spelled out.

And as a nation you usually only want to do stuff like this - to send a message. You dont care about the individual. You allready have smeared Wikileaks enough to a point where it shouldnt be much of a political issue in the future. (When people starte grouping it mentally with RT and Sputnik, ...) You've hunted its members, placed them in jail on no grounds whatsoever (just for the usual month or so until a countries legal system has something to say about it...). You've done the whole spiel.

Another issue, might be - that even in exile in south america, Assange could act as a political figure - because Wikileaks is transnational and literally could operate from anywhere.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> As I said, he shouldn't have expected permanent residence at an embassy regardless of his behavior.  Finding a way to travel to Ecuador and taking asylum in the country at large would've been a much better option.  Even putting aside his close ties to the GRU, Russia almost certainly would've taken him in too, given that they took in Snowden.  For whatever reason, Assange simply failed to plan ahead, and that's what ultimately led to his eviction and arrest.



I don't even know where to begin tackling this because it's utterly absurd.
First of all, he can't just "find a way" if he isn't granted safe passage. Ecuador granted him status as a diplomat which wasn't recognized by the UK, he would have been immediately arrested if he stepped outside the embassy, the police has previously threatened to enter the embassy and arrest him, the embassy was guarded by british police 24/7 from 2012 to 2015.
Whether you like it or not, Assange was able to successfully make his case that he was politically persecuted and was granted asylum.
He was told that he was welcome to stay at the embassy indefinitely.
I find it worrisome that someone should expect to have their asylum revoked at some point because they're in an embassy with the passage to freedom blocked by what was acknowledged to be his opressors, if they had the power themselves to find a way to get to safety they wouldn't be seeking asylum in the first place.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I'm in favor of granting asylum for people from wartorn countries but asylum is usually reserved for political *state* persecution based on immutable characteristics or political leaning. Poverty, war or violence from organizations other than the state itself does not warrant an asylum claim according to the geneva convention. Seeing you defend the right of central americans to claim asylum in the other thread and your indifference towards Assange's situation reveals a freightening double standard.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> He sat in that embassy to 'repent' for the rest of his life - until the Trump administration had the brilliant idea to get him to the US for a show trial. Dems blocked against that - until the Hillary email thing happened, at least thats the gossip on the streets.


The Brits didn't care about what the US wanted, Assange had previously failed to appear in court for charges against him in the UK.  It's still unknown whether a British court will decide to extradite him or not, that hearing isn't scheduled until February 2020.



supersonicwaffle said:


> I don't even know where to begin tackling this because it's utterly absurd.
> First of all, he can't just "find a way" if he isn't granted safe passage. Ecuador granted him status as a diplomat which wasn't recognized by the UK, he would have been immediately arrested if he stepped outside the embassy, the police has previously threatened to enter the embassy and arrest him, the embassy was guarded by british police 24/7 from 2012 to 2015.
> Whether you like it or not, Assange was able to successfully make his case that he was politically persecuted and was granted asylum.


Then his situation was even more precarious than I believed it to be.  All the more reason not to piss off his hosts the way he did.  Perhaps he was too narcissistic to ever consider that they might evict him, no matter how horrendous his behavior.



supersonicwaffle said:


> Seeing you defend the right of central americans to claim asylum in the other thread and your indifference towards Assange's situation reveals a freightening double standard.


I've already stated that I don't think Assange should be jailed over the Chelsea Manning leaks, but his situation is not at all comparable to that of immigrants fleeing cartel violence and countries in crisis.  When you're in the business of publishing unredacted leaks and whistleblower information concerning every government (except one), you're bound to attract the attention of the world's law enforcement agencies.  So you either have to understand the law very well and use every legal loophole at your advantage to stay within a grey area, or if you're going to cross that line, you have to be intelligent enough to stay three steps ahead of law enforcement at all times.  Assange did not have either of these traits, so it's unsurprising that he managed to back himself into this corner.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The Brits didn't care about what the US wanted, Assange had previously failed to appear in court for charges against him in the UK. It's still unknown whether a British court will decide to extradite him or not, that hearing isn't scheduled until February 2020.



It's unknown whether a British court will extradite him to the US, that is correct. However, Assange hasn't failed to appear in court, he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy to prevent his extradition to Sweden which has been decided by the UK Supreme Court.
The documents WikiLeaks published contained material of a conflict that Great Britain was directly involved in. Assuming a conflict of interest isn't far fetched.
British prosecution persuaded the swedish prosecution not to withdraw their arrest warrant when they intended to do so in 2013. The swedish arrest warrant has ultimately been withdrawn in 2017. Swedish courts have denied a request for Assange's extradition to Sweden just last month.



Xzi said:


> but his situation is not at all comparable to that of immigrants fleeing cartel violence and countries in crisis



You're correct they aren't comparable. Assange has much more of a leg to stand on to claim asylum. That is not to say asylum shouldn't be granted to the central american people fleeing those situations.



Xzi said:


> When you're in the business of publishing unredacted leaks and whistleblower information concerning every government, you're bound to attract the attention of the world's law enforcement agencies.



The state going after someone for protected speech is what is commonly refered to as political persecution and gives you the right to claim asylum according to the geneva convention.
Being in the business of publishing leaks and whistleblower information is what's called journalism. The state going after journalists is something we should not accept in a liberal democracy.



Xzi said:


> So you either have to understand the law very well and use every legal loophole at your advantage to stay within a grey area, or if you're going to cross that line, you have to be intelligent enough to stay three steps ahead of law enforcement at all times. Assange did not have either of these traits, so it's unsurprising that he managed to back himself into this corner.



You can understand the law all you want if the government is willing to interpret copying files as hacking.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 23, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> The state going after someone for protected speech is what is commonly refered to as political persecution and gives you the right to claim asylum according to the geneva convention.
> Being in the business of publishing leaks and whistleblower information is what's called journalism. The state going after journalists is something we should not accept in a liberal democracy.


We agree to an extent, the only point of contention being Assange's tendency to publish _unredacted_ leaks which might endanger certain individuals.  As I said, I don't think Assange should be indicted for the Chelsea Manning stuff, and the Obama administration had decided against going after him for it.



supersonicwaffle said:


> You can understand the law all you want if the government is willing to interpret copying files as hacking.


According to the NY Times article posted in the OP, they're trying to get him on helping to crack a password in order to access those files.  I agree it's a relatively flimsy charge, but who knows, maybe the prosecution's case will fall apart mid-trial.  It wouldn't be the first time that the Trump administration proves their incompetence in a court setting.  That's assuming he even gets extradited in the first place, of course.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> We agree to an extent, the only point of contention being Assange's tendency to publish _unredacted_ leaks which might endanger certain individuals. As I said, I don't think Assange should be indicted for the Chelsea Manning stuff, and the Obama administration had decided against going after him for it.



We agree fully, there would definitely be an interesting discussion around responsible disclosure and I don't necessarily agree that WikiLeaks' realese practices are a good thing.



Xzi said:


> According to the NY Times article posted in the OP, they're trying to get him on helping to crack a password in order to access those files. I agree it's a relatively flimsy charge, but who knows, maybe the prosecution's case will fall apart mid-trial. It wouldn't be the first time that the Trump administration proves their incompetence in a court setting. That's assuming he even gets extradited in the first place, of course.



Just had to quickly look it up. Personally I wouldn't call it hacking or cracking but I can see how someone would.
He agreed to have hashes looked up in a rainbow table which means that he basically agreed to compare a hash that he recieved from Manning against a table of previously compromised or insecure passwords.

To put things into context here's the _default _password policy for Microsoft infrastructures of the top of my head so I may have a value here or there slightly wrong.

needs at least 3 of the 4 following character types: Uppercase, Lowercase, Numeric, Nonalphanumeric
minimum password length of 7 characters
maximum password age of 42 days
can't be too similar to the last 20 used passwords
minimum password age of 1 day (so you can't cycle through 20 passwords to get the same you had before)
will be stored with non-reversible hashing algorithms
Whether this was successful is unknown and it was only claimed that Manning wanted to obfuscate her identity and not gain access to files she didn't have herself.


----------



## notimp (Jul 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The Brits didn't care about what the US wanted, Assange had previously failed to appear in court for charges against him in the UK. It's still unknown whether a British court will decide to extradite him or not, that hearing isn't scheduled until February 2020.


US has made the indictment public just week(s?) before (points at consolidated action). Before that we didn't know what he was accused of - and the US even publicly denied, that they were looking into indicting him for crimes related to the Manning case. There is now an active international extradition request on his name.

UK usually acts in agreement with what the US is wanting them to do in such matters (Almost every state in the world does.), after Brexit especially so.

Also this is a matter concerning US intelligence services kind of pretty directly. They are in an alliance with the other english speaking countries offering free and pretty far reaching information exchange and access. So as far as foreign politics is concerned, they pretty much speak as one voice.

It would be a minor international incident, if Assange doesn't get extradited, in the current political climate especially.

Its not like Assange chose not to set a foot on UK ground for seven years to forgo seven months in investigative custody.


----------



## notimp (Oct 24, 2019)

edit: sorry wrong thread.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 19, 2019)

*Sweden drops Assange rape investigation*

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50473792


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 26, 2019)

I'm surprised he hasn't been Epstein'd yet. I for one think a full pardon is in order. He only facilitated whistle-blowing against the real criminals known as government. I also believe in the free sharing of information and enjoy obtaining information and items I'm not supposed to have (game console SDK leaks as one minor example).

I've seen people on Farcebook saying some crap about "endangerin' r troops" but I say they shouldn't be volunteering for unconstitutional acts of aggression in the first place. The current authoritarian global political landscape needs to be destroyed, and the truth is its weakness.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JoeBloggs777 said:


> *Sweden drops Assange rape investigation*
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50473792


They were most likely false charges being made for political gain.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 26, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> I'm surprised he hasn't been Epstein'd yet. .



it looks likes he's in a poor mental and physical health

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...-so-bad-he-could-die-in-prison-say-60-doctors


----------



## dAVID_ (Nov 26, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> I'm surprised he hasn't been Epstein'd yet. I for one think a full pardon is in order. He only facilitated whistle-blowing against the real criminals known as government. I also believe in the free sharing of information and enjoy obtaining information and items I'm not supposed to have (game console SDK leaks as one minor example).
> 
> I've seen people on Farcebook saying some crap about "endangerin' r troops" but I say they shouldn't be volunteering for unconstitutional acts of aggression in the first place. The current authoritarian global political landscape needs to be destroyed, and the truth is its weakness.
> 
> ...


They probably haven't killed him because he isn't Wikileaks' main source of information. Wikileaks merely acts as intermediary between the leaker and the public.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 29, 2019)

Fresh from 36C3 Hacker Conference.
There is a report that Julian Assange was under 24 Hour video surveillance during his stay at the Embassy of Ecuador in London.


----------



## notimp (Dec 29, 2019)

The recordings on the talk at 36C3 actually flaked out (it was one of the earlier ones at the conference), so according to Twitter it will be held again on day four (in two days time). 

So the actual talk will go online in a few days as well and I'm sure someone will link it in here also.


----------



## notimp (Dec 31, 2019)

Video of the talk is now online:


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Jan 1, 2020)

Meh. Here's hoping they arrest Assange and lock him up for a while.

He's a Russian stooge and his irresponsible leaking has caused civilian lives to be put at risk.


----------



## notimp (Jan 1, 2020)

You ate up mostly propaganda dear. Here is what he is accused of:

- Releasing more material than any journalistic outlet. Following at least in large parts a logic looking like this:


> *(12:16:38 PM) bradass87:* or Guantanamo, Bagram, Bucca, Taji, VBC for that matter…
> 
> *(12:17:47 PM) bradass87:* things that would have an impact on 6.7 billion people
> 
> *(12:21:24 PM) bradass87:* say… a database of half a million events during the iraq war… from 2004 to 2009… with reports, date time groups, lat-lon locations, casualty figures… ? or 260,000 state department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world, explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective? […]


src: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/

That automatically (amount) resulted in not redacting every name in the material. That didn't mean, that they did and don't withhold material dangerous for sources and individuals, because they did.

To this day - there is no confirmed case, where someone was harmed as a direct result of one of the releases.

At the same time, we are now living in a world, where people can do correlation analysis on open datasets (fitness tracker info, exif location info on photos), and are selling that aggregated data people disseminate for free, for cents, so any Bozo can find out the daily routines of members of the security services, or even the daily movement patterns of your president, or his children Same with members of private security companies.

In addition, in the conflict he is accused of doing that in - the US by far dominated in an oppressive matter - so the general risk of something happening to them on the ground was and is low to non existent. Much less civilians lives.

In fact - publishing a video, that showed US forces mowing down civilians for fun, was one of the points of contention, why he currently is in the situation he is in. He reached mass public perception - and thats what got him into trouble.

Assange also isn't a russian stooge. The ideology is way different. But he likely was used as a means of disseminating russian propaganda, when Wikileaks still had the reach (people thought it was cool, without knowing what it was), way back when.

So if you want to spread dark Propaganda and lie into peoples faces - maybe get out of the forum dear. Thanks.

You are not interpreting the situation, you are openly misrepresenting it. And the worst thing is, that people get recruited believing in the bullshit you do. Thats what owning media (being able to deduce what flies as 'mainstreamable opinion') can do for you. (On the societal level.)

And that was also what Wikileaks initially threatened.

Assange has been in confinement for nearly ten years now. Every US democratic government couldnt care less about him, or what he had done. But people within the tertiary sector, in agencies and political parties cant forgive, and want to make sure there is only scorched earth  left, so no one, no one is willing to repeat an act of whistleblowing on the scale that became possible through Wikileaks for the first time. Thats what this is all about at the moment.

Institutionalized payback and revenge. Its the best currently available representation of the conservative ethos of kicking everyone thats already down, so you can solidify your position.

The principle you have Mary Sue Jesus for, so you can still claim, that this is not how your societies work. 

How about throwing Trump into Gitmo, btw - because his chief political adviser made it extremely publicly obvious, how easy it is to still crawl publicly available Facebook information, aggregat it, segment it for pattern analysis, and pull of highly unlikely wins in elections with it? So make use of it for power politics. By making that plainly obvious, that guy personally endangered each and every american citizen, including security personal more so - than any Manning cable. Its just - they didn't do it to the military elite of an entire country. Lets tie him up in court as a spy - not for opening up state secrets, but the ones of every american citizen. How about that?

Oh no - then and there you have nothing to hide... But when it comes to military operation specifics on a war that you initiated, for bullshit reasons, and the world didn't want to fight, and to diplomatic cables (not highly confidential ones - just base levels stuff mostly - because Manning didn't have the security clearances, and was no Snowden (sysadmin)), oh no - now you get angry at someone violating privacy principles. Sure...

How dare he inform the world, what was happening.

Hey and if you are a democrat still crying over the agenda setting in terms of the Hillary emails (Propaganda, mostly) - well, that was FBI director Comey for the most part. Throw him in Gitmo as well, while you are at it, right?

Go watch another Marvel movie, bois.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Jan 1, 2020)

@notimp - Cute, but here's what I can tell you about Assange (and WikiLeaks by extension):

He has not published any information compromising to Russia since 2011, while plenty of compromising information has come forward from sources Assange would likely have access to. This is because Russia is his biggest funder. He also for similar reasons opted to dismiss the Panama papers because they implicated Putin and he turned down documents that would implicate the Russian government.

He irresponsibly leaked the information Chelsea Manning send to him, endangering the lives of the last remaining Jews in Bagdad and later expressed a callous disregard for said action (this is somewhat of a pattern for a lot of the stuff that he publishes on WikiLeaks: The man doesn't vet what is send to him, he just dumps it on there and just throws up his hands when people point out he's actually endangering peoples lives).
About the DNC; I don't know what the fuck you're smoking but Assange specifically timed the leak to disrupt the Democratic primaries as much as possible and the leak originates from the Russian state backed hacking groups COZY BEAR (the GRU) and FANCY BEAR (the FSB). Those hacks were discovered by the AIVD (the Dutch secret service) and they were reported to the FBI. ( https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenscha...ssia-s-interference-in-us-elections~b4f8111b/ )

Releasing large amounts of doxx on many Turkish people, calling them Erdogan emails. None of the mail's ended up being related to Erdogan, and were just average communications between Turkish citizens as well as their personal information, including their voting activity and party affiliation.
Outing many gay people, rape victims and HIV+ people in Saudi Arabia, all of whom risk death due to numerous reasons.
It is also important to note that Assange responded extremely poorly when he is being criticized of these actions (main one that jumps to mind is the Turkey doxx, which a Turkish writer called him out for and his response was to call her an Erdogan apologist and said she was faking the story.)

I will not deny that Assange in his early days and at the time he peaked in popularity was an extremely important figure in coming to the realization that the US government isn't the kind thing that it is. However, there's just too much damaging stuff attached to him that make it hard for me to consider him anything but a Russian stooge at this point. The man is an irresponsible leaker. 

Contrast him with Snowden, who had a much more cautious approach to the data he leaked and made sure that there weren't any damaging documents released that would implicate or put individuals at risk.

So no, I do think that Assange is someone who should be put away due to his callous disregard for human life and his collaboration with the Russian governent.


----------



## notimp (Jan 1, 2020)

Ev1l0rd said:


> He has not published any information compromising to Russia since 2011, while plenty of compromising information has come forward from sources Assange would likely have access to. This is because Russia is his biggest funder. He also for similar reasons opted to dismiss the Panama papers because they implicated Putin and he turned down documents that would implicate the Russian government.


Panama Papers were leaked to a research collective of media outlets directly, as far as I'm aware of, Wikileaks never had them. (?)
(Its correct, that those mainly implicated Putin and friends, from what we saw coming forward from them so far btw.)

Wikileaks isnt Assange. I think there was one incidence, where he was accused of overruling a decision of going forward with material, and one incidence where he was accused of waiting for the most opportune moment to produce a release with the highest public impact.

If you have information on more stuff, that I am not aware of - pleasae post with source, I'm an eager learner. 


After the entire fallout, where you have  a person held in captivity for 10 years, now are ignoring special UN reporteurs on torture, and publicly accusing Andy Müller-Maguhn as being the 'russian lineked' source that 'brought him' the most damaging material of a recent hack on a USB stick - all reasonable expectation of 'goodwill and decency' is out of the window.

That Assange by now is a public political figure, that is aided by russian intelligence network interests, I dont dispute. I mean, when you move the entire intelligence apparatus of the western world against 'a guy' (and Manning) go figure. Its not like you can be picky with your choice anymore, after that.

No this, from my point of view, is all about 'how did the west act' when there was still an opportunity to deescalate.

Now thats over with. And all that Assange has going for, not to get locked up following a secret trial, after being forced into solitary confinement for (and now in the direct sense) for about a year (for what, publishing?), is people not following your line of arguing, that he is the worst kind of dispicable human being -- the enemy.

Thats circular logic. That manipulative.

I don't want sympathy for the guy - I want reasonable procedural logic. Everything connected to this case is so far past 'goodwill' - its not at all funny anymore. Including the strongman antics of the recent republican administration. I mean for all intents of purpose, you could have left him rotting in that embassy for the rest of his life, but no - even that wasn't punishment enough for messing with the wrong constituency.

Lets not act as if everyone else implicated always acted like an angel here.


----------



## notimp (Jan 2, 2020)

According to the Panama Papers alledged Whistleblower (breaking silence) he might have offered the data to Wikileaks before going to the research collective, and didnt get an answer back.

Several other media outlets declined to look into the story as well. (Please take that at face value.)
src https://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/articles/572c897a5632a39742ed34ef/

Source started conversation with Sueddeutsche by sending mails with the subjectline - Would you be interested in secret data? Its likely (?) that Wikileaks didnt get the data, because they didnt respond to his prompts on their tips line. Now looking, if there is a statement on behalf of WL on that matter.

edit: Well ackording to a tweet they did get the data:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/716819410959384576

Or not. Data is 2.6 TB in size, there is only a very small subsection that is out there on other portals. I'd still say that its unlikely that WL got prompted the data by the source, if they didnt respond on their tips line on multiple attempts to get in contact with them, and more likely that the Tweet is Pr. 
src: On the size of the leak: https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/net...ginalquellen-nicht-oeffentlich-a-1085341.html (German)

edit2: More politics in the matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Panama_Papers#WikiLeaks



edit: And here is WL side of the story in a different case dealing with russian gov leaks:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/1...-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/
So basically - leak was published before (in 2004), but only about half of the data, policies are stated, that they only deal with stuff that already wasnt made public before.


----------



## Jayro (Jan 2, 2020)

Neither him or Snowden did anything wrong. Blowing the lid off corruption is HEROISM.


----------



## smileyhead (Jan 2, 2020)

Oh my God, this image is perfect.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Jan 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> Panama Papers were leaked to a research collective of media outlets directly, as far as I'm aware of, Wikileaks never had them. (?)


You misconstrued my sentence (partially on me). I never claimed that he would have access to the Panama Papers, I was talking about damaging information to the Russian government in general.

His dismissal of the Panama papers is by all accounts just an additional example of him being a Russian stooge.


----------



## notimp (Jan 2, 2020)

In terms of probability, no. Other explainations are still possible. When dealing with 2.6 TB of data and a source that is trying to sell, by sending out emails with subject line 'do you want secret data?' to German news outlets, I could think of a few mishaps in communication. 

(Srcs see last posting.)

That said, I wouldn't consider WL as being entirely impartial (media outlets also rarely are) after all the stuff that took place. Including coordinated arest attempt of their staff in Equador after regime change with a flaky reason, that they were considered working on toppling the countries government, while Assange was under their legal protection, surveilling Assange in the embassy - including on talks with his legal team, preventing attempts for him to get out there before the equadorian change of government, ...

So at this point - heresay usually isn't impartial either. 

Just go by the quality of material that they publish(ed), and by what Assange will be charged for in the end. And if its publishing material, this still should leave a bitter taste in everyones mouth. 

Also don't be stupid and shout, that everyone in this case, or any other is a god darn HERO, either. Extreme viewpoints hardly ever help in approximating 'truth' either.


----------



## notimp (Feb 1, 2020)

UUPS. Someone created all our perceptions of Assange not wanting to face the swedish justice system - out of thin air.

UUPS. Someone made up the rape allegations against Assange. Which never existed in the original documents.

Well.. someone should have told us! Well - at least now...

https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

(UN special reporteur on torture, researched in the case.)

Hey CIA... *wavehand*


----------



## notimp (Feb 3, 2020)

As none of the people in here are reading longform news anymore -

those are the most important parts of the interview with the UN special rapporteur on torture:



> On Nov. 11, an official document that I had sent to the Swedish government two months before was made public. In the document, I made a request to the Swedish government to provide explanations for around 50 points pertaining to the human rights implications of the way they were handling the case. How is it possible that the press was immediately informed despite the prohibition against doing so? How is it possible that a suspicion was made public even though the questioning hadn’t yet taken place? How is it possible for you to say that a rape occurred even though the woman involved contests that version of events? On the day the document was made public, I received a paltry response from Sweden: The government has no further comment on this case.
> 
> What does that answer mean?
> It is an admission of guilt.
> ...





> For as long as employees of the American government obey the orders of their superiors, they can participate in wars of aggression, war crimes and torture knowing full well that they will never have to answer to their actions. What happened to the lessons learned in the Nuremberg Trials? I have worked long enough in conflict zones to know that mistakes happen in war. It’s not always unscrupulous criminal acts. A lot of it is the result of stress, exhaustion and panic. That’s why I can absolutely understand when a government says: We’ll bring the truth to light and we, as a state, take full responsibility for the harm caused, but if blame cannot be directly assigned to individuals, we will not be imposing draconian punishments. But it is extremely dangerous when the truth is suppressed and criminals are not brought to justice.





> YouTube videos are circulating in which American soldiers brag about driving Iraqi women to suicide with systematic rape. Nobody is investigating it. At the same time, a person who exposes such things is being threatened with 175 years in prison. For an entire decade, he has been inundated with accusations that cannot be proven and are breaking him. And nobody is being held accountable. Nobody is taking responsibility. It marks an erosion of the social contract. We give countries power and delegate it to governments – but in return, they must be held accountable for how they exercise that power. If we don’t demand that they be held accountable, we will lose our rights sooner or later. Humans are not democratic by their nature. Power corrupts if it is not monitored. Corruption is the result if we do not insist that power be monitored.



Can no one read more than an emotionally charged tweet anymore?

Whats happening here? 

You have reality management, state intervention, torture, lies and the reaction is...

*blub*?

So whats the next Marvel movie you'll be watching?


----------



## notimp (Feb 18, 2020)

100 doctors alarmed over UK prison ‘torture’ of ailing Julian Assange
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/eur...-over-uk-prison-torture-ailing-julian-assange

AFP/DPA article via South China Morning Post. 

His extradition process beginns next week. To america, btw, sweden has dropped all accusations.


----------



## notimp (Feb 19, 2020)

Shouldnt have put torture in quotes, here is the primary source:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30383-4/fulltext


----------



## notimp (Sep 9, 2020)

The puppet show continues:


----------



## kevin corms (Sep 19, 2020)

I hope they reveal who actually leaked Hillary's email, it just needs to come out.


----------



## notimp (Sep 25, 2020)

More background on media currently not covering the Assange hearings:


----------



## notimp (Dec 29, 2020)

Andy Müller-Maguhn does a wrapup on CIA surveillance and intimidation tactics used in the Wikileaks case:



src: https://media.ccc.de/v/rc3-11512-cia_vs_wikileaks


----------



## notimp (Jan 4, 2021)

> *UK judge blocks Julian Assange extradition*
> The UK's top court ruled against the extradition of the WikiLeaks founder, citing mental health grounds. In the US, he faces up to 175 years, for multiple espionage charges for releasing sensitive military documents.


https://www.dw.com/en/uk-judge-blocks-julian-assange-extradition/a-56122295

"Mental health grounds" what a perversion.

Washington lawyers are already protesting the decision. On what grounds? Wanting to drive a declared insane person into suicide? Thats not hyperbole btw - that was the reasoning of the judge today.

F*cking aholes.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jan 5, 2021)

It almost seems to be easier not to do the illegal black ops shit to begin with and go through the proper channels and not commit actual war crimes, rather than punishing those who expose them. But hey, that's just me.


----------



## notimp (Jan 6, 2021)

Subtle Demise said:


> It almost seems to be easier not to do the illegal black ops shit to begin with and go through the proper channels and not commit actual war crimes, rather than punishing those who expose them. But hey, that's just me.


Let me argue for it the other way around.

To be able to hold a war, you have to 'dehumanize' the enemy. Which is fairly easy and works pretty well - using established stuff (if I'd call it 'methods' it would be too dark..  ).

In a war - sh*t happens.

The sh*t that happens you don't want to get out, because otherwise people in democracies would be against wars, seeing the mistakes that happen, actually - somewhat regularly. Also this has an internal dynamic - where "everything becomes rectifiable" "because they killed me friend".

So you engage in 'embedded journalism' and 'news suppression on accounts of 'national security''  and 'military tribunals' (instead of international legal courts) - to keep the public message quite tame, for as long as you can. Gives you more options.

(This is what war, and end of war should look like to US citizens -




search terms: "us soldier kissing end of war propaganda"
more background: https://web.archive.org/web/2019091...es-square-kissing-photo-end-second-world-war/ )

Then along strolls a guy with interests in computers, that tells the public - everyone can be a newssource, unfiltered, they cant take down your voice -- oh, and the democratic establishment is engaged in candidate suppression, structurally.

Guess what happens next.

Its just that at one point - all thats left is the fact, that the US really, really, really wanted to destroy that person.

Which is also kind of the point.


----------



## notimp (Jun 29, 2021)

US made up accusations:


They knew in what position they wanted him. So they started fabricating.

Fun.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 29, 2021)

As much as I don't like him. It be wise for him not to be arrested. Because the thing is, this is technically a first amendment case. And comes down to the government having something leaked they didn't want, and silencing that speech. Which is just not a good precedent to set to say that's okay.


----------



## teamlocust (Jun 29, 2021)

Ah shit here we go again


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 29, 2021)

notimp said:


> US made up accusations:
> 
> 
> They knew in what position they wanted him. So they started fabricating.
> ...



fun...


----------

