Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested

[Ev1l0rd]

@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]

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]

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]

Neither him or Snowden did anything wrong. Blowing the lid off corruption is HEROISM.

 

[smileyhead]

Oh my God, this image is perfect.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

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]

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]

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]

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.

How so?
As UN Special Rapporteur, I have been tasked by the international community of nations with looking into complaints lodged by victims of torture and, if necessary, with requesting explanations or investigations from governments. That is the daily work I do with all UN member states. From my experience, I can say that countries that act in good faith are almost always interested in supplying me with the answers I need to highlight the legality of their behavior. When a country like Sweden declines to answer questions submitted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, it shows that the government is aware of the illegality of its behavior and wants to take no responsibility for its behavior. They pulled the plug and abandoned the case a week later because they knew I would not back down. When countries like Sweden allow themselves to be manipulated like that, then our democracies and our human rights face a fundamental threat.

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]

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]

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]

The puppet show continues:

 

[kevin corms]

I hope they reveal who actually leaked Hillary's email, it just needs to come out.

 

[notimp]

More background on media currently not covering the Assange hearings:

 

[notimp]

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]

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]

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]

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]

US made up accusations:


They knew in what position they wanted him. So they started fabricating.

Fun.

 

[Deleted User]

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.