Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested

Discussion in 'World News, Current Events & Politics' started by Joe88, Apr 11, 2019.

  1. Missing Number

    Missing Number GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    5
    Sep 18, 2003
    Canada
    with a name like that, he is probably a harry potter villain.....
     
    Xzi likes this.
  2. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    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.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 21, 2019
  3. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    This is the same critisicm that the Panama Papers publishers had for a WikiLeaks style release BTW.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited by supersonicwaffle, Jul 21, 2019
  4. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    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.
     
  5. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    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.
     
  6. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  7. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited by supersonicwaffle, Jul 21, 2019
  8. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    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.. ;)
     
  9. smf

    smf GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    9
    Feb 23, 2009
    United Kingdom
    No, humans increase risk. More organisations means there is less regulation.

    Monopolies often exist in capitalism as well.
     
    Last edited by smf, Jul 21, 2019
  10. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    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. ;) )
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 21, 2019
    IncredulousP likes this.
  11. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    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.
     
  12. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    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.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 21, 2019
  13. smf

    smf GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    9
    Feb 23, 2009
    United Kingdom
    Why did you mention it then?

    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
     
  14. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    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.
     
  15. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Jul 21, 2019
    IncredulousP likes this.
  16. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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!
     
  17. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    That's a decent plan, but exposure on a wide, public scale would still require a greater infrastructure and effort.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Jul 22, 2019
    IncredulousP likes this.
  18. smf

    smf GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    9
    Feb 23, 2009
    United Kingdom
    It wasn't passive aggressive. If you don't understand something then you should ask.

    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.
     
  19. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    Fair enough. Guess I just misunderstood, my apoliges.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    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.

    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"
     
    Xzi likes this.
  20. smf

    smf GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    9
    Feb 23, 2009
    United Kingdom
    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.

    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%?
     
Loading...