Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested

[Xzi]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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 ---------------------------

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]

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.

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.

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]

See I'm a bit older

How do you know that?

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]

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.

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.

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).

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 ---------------------------

How do you know that?



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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.