Chelsea Manning Is Expected to Leave Prison, 28 Years Early
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
If false, Assange will have permanently damaged his reputation, at least in my eyes.
The key word there is "implying". Wikileaks mission statement doesn't rely on speculation, it relies on hard evidence, however, their PR strategy seems quite different.
Check out wikileaks twitter account some time.
I personally see Assange as the most important of these three. He started a revolution and enabled all the Snowdens and Mannings to reach the masses.
Also, you are just as equally pushing an agenda.
Regular journalists who had to flee the country and eventually start their own publication in order to continue to be able to publish the investigative stories spawned by the information.
Greenwald did not return to the US for quite some time out of legitimate fear that he'd be arrested and jailed immediately upon entry.
At no point have I ever seen any mention of Russia in general, or Putin in particular, in anything related to Assange. The closest would probably Assange's assistance to Snowden in Hong Kong, who eventually went on to seek asylum in Russia.
I felt the need to comment, since your "obvious" assertion took me so completely by surprise. I honestly have no idea how someone could come to such a conclusion.
I'm in the UK (same as Assange!); maybe where you are (the US?) the media is insert its own narrative?
This manifests in all sorts of odd ways, the most ridiculous of which was this:
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-...
Keep in mind that there is a massive propaganda campaign being done by the US to make Americans think Putin is evil.
Chances are, Putin is no more evil than any US president. Keep in mind that even the most ostensibly intelligent, reasonable, and articulate president in memory, Barack Obama, happily accelerated the campaign to convict journalists under the espionage act and ramped up drone executions abroad.
My point is that the US may legitimately consider Russia an adversary based on geopolitical realities (scarce resources, etc.) but none of this means Putin is more evil than a US president.
In the US there is some degree of public consent required for military action and foreign policy, and the best way to make this happen is to create a moral argument. So of course the leaders of all nations the US considers adversaries are framed as evil. But this is just meant to help achieve democratic consent, no serious policy thinkers actually believe it.
Propaganda or not, anti-Putin Russians have a bit of a track record of untimely death.
Uh, what are terrorists if not political opponents?
Killing people who are deemed to hold certain beliefs without any judicial process linking them to specific criminal activity is simply killing political opponents.
This follows from the adage that war is politics with guns.
I also do not draw a major distinction between attempting to prosecute American journalists under the espionage act and simply having them killed. Arguably prosecuting them creates at least the same kind of chilling effect on journalism as a whole as murdering them does, and both leaders have the same goal of quelling dissent and intimidating reporters.
I'm no expert, but _attempting_ to prosecute and actually killing is probably a worthwhile distinction.
You're being too charitable. Both have the same intent. The more asymmetrically powerful the ruler is, the less lethal the threat needs to be to create a chilling effect.
For example, rival gang members (with power parity) must kill each-other because they lack other mechanisms of coercion and must play their only card in the moment.
Creating martyrs is always sub-optimal compared to catching and incarcerating "criminals" or forcing compliance by the threat of capture or alienation/ostracism.
As a thought experiment, which state has stronger control over its citizens, Russia or Singapore?
Was the US bombing of Al Jazeera's office better because the journalists killed didn't have American passports?
What don't you think is entirely unfounded? Russia/Assange connections, or anti-Russia stories in the media?
While I agree with your characterisation of Russia and Putin, it doesn't offer any support ("founding"?) for either of these, other than as an ad hominem which can be applied to lots of countries/heads-of-state.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as...
It has been reported in the UK too. I've certainly seen the allegations reported in the Guardian, for example.
I find it deeply troubling that Assange appears to conveniently misunderstand the implications made at him: that he is acting as a willing tool of the Putin administration - not an accusation of publishing falsified documents (although i'll be surprised if it doesn't come to that), but by becoming a mouthpiece for the Kremlin to publish stolen information to advance their anti-democratic interests. Leaks are important and valuable because they empower democratic voters to make informed choices.
Wikileaks repeated derision of leaks since the election of President Trump has been particularly jarring. Leaks -and by this I mean ethically motivated ones, such as Chelsea Mannings- are an important protection mechanism in a democracy; and having a place to publish these is important; which is why I donated to wikileaks several years ago, around the time credit card companies began refusing their donations.
Supporting ethically motivated leaks to uncover wrongdoing is not at all the same thing as supporting a mouthpiece for a foreign regime that steals information and regularly murders journalists. The values that motivate me to support journalism are the ones that have prevented me from supporting Assange over the last couple of years.
The Assange-Russia connection is a construct employed by the Democrats to counter the eventual fall-out when their Russian story deflates. (I.e. instead of standing there like complete morons, they can say "well, it has been Assange after all, but he has been controlled by Russia".)
He had a TV show on Russia Today..
How is it obvious? Where is the evidence? All I see is the axe he has to grind with the US, which is not entirely unreasonable.
would it be better if more light was shed on russia? absolutely.
is the problem assange? probably not; it's almost certainly the lack of leaking by the US or other governments about russia.
the biggest responsibility assange has is making sure the leaks are true. that's impossible to do 100%, but by all accounts the accuracy is incredibly high given the size of their operation.
Think about the nature of Wikileaks. Assange is a "stooge" for the opponent of any government embarrassed by leaked information.
In the same way, you might argue that if the NYT publishes an article about corruption in the US military it too is a stooge for some US enemy?
It's so strange how partisan loyalty can make people believe some pretty farfetched and illogical things.
You may think it's a joke, but some people will believe even obvious nonsense if you keep repeating it. Back in December, a man drove to Washington to "self-investigate" with a gun: https://www.google.fi/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017...
Alex Jones has apologized for spreading this story. Don't be worse than him.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15893
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/12/1223066_re-get-ready-f...
How many times did the Clinton's visit that island?
Bernie people: Please read Skippy's email.
https://i.redd.it/5nuf25zglpvx.jpg
How about that island?
Any visitor. AT THE FUCKING MOMA. How many pictures of her do you think were taken?
The links you posted didn't have anything about an island, so if you want me to do your googling for you, please be more precise.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramović#The_Artist_Is...
The island is Little St. James.
What are you trying to accomplish with all these bizarre hints ("sounds like you know...")? Do you think I'm part of some conspiracy?
The 'sounds like you know' is because I incorrectly assumed you swearing about that pic meant you knew who that is. It's a totally reasonable reaction. That's Anthony Weiner (former congressman). Joe Biden knows him well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdCuDF4u5Yg
It's from a performance art piece that lasted 736.5 hours. Abramovic sat there quietly all that time, anyone could sit down with her, there was no vetting. Assuming an average of two minutes per visitor, she received 22,095 people. I would guess most of us don't meet that many people in our lifetimes.
It's literally the same as if you posted a picture of me in the Louvre looking at a painting and standing next to someone you don't like, and then suggested this evidence proves I'm part of a paedophile ring with this person.
Maybe pedo rings don't exist, or maybe it's not something some elite have a history of. Maybe I have no good reason to mention that island, or these people. You made it clear you don't know the who what or where on subjects I suggested are pretty basic and related, yet you seem sure you are informed. If you want to know more, you could. It's not something anyone can effectively research in an evening unless you decide to dismiss it.
I guess I was offended that Marina Abramovic is dragged into this on the flimsiest of evidence. She is one of the leading artists in the world, and this kind of malicious gossip is the complete opposite of the radical openness and self-consciousness that she lives through her work.
That's probably why this character assassination feels personal: if it can happen to her, it can happen to anyone.
> You made it clear you don't know the who what or where on subjects I suggested are pretty basic and related, yet you seem sure you are informed. If you want to know more, you could. It's not something anyone can effectively research in an evening unless you want to just dismiss it.
Here's the thing though: it's not something anyone can effectively research over the Internet -- full stop!
Edgar Welch, the Pizzagate gunman who drove to Washington to investigate the Comet restaurant, believed he had done deep research on this. His family said to reporters that he spent months obsessing about it. One day, he had enough. This is what happened next:
"According to texts cited by prosecutors, Welch believed he was doing a public service.
'Raiding a pedo ring, possibly sacraficing [sic] the lives of a few for the lives of many,' Welch wrote to one friend.
'Standing up against a corrupt system that kidnaps, tortures and rapes babies and children in our own back yard.'
He added: 'I’m sorry bro, but I’m tired of turning the channel and hoping someone does something and being thankful
it’s not my family. One day it will be our families. The world is too afraid to act and I’m too stubborn not to.'
When he went to Washington, Welch took with him the assault weapon, a .38 revolver and a 12-gauge shotgun.
When he walked into the restaurant, diners, including families with children, fled in panic.
According to court documents, Welch fired the rifle several times at a locked closet door, damaging computer equipment,
and aimed the gun at an employee who had entered the back of the restaurant and promptly ran back out. No one was injured.
Welch later said he regretted his actions."Do you think Welch was well-informed by Internet research?
Also, you brought her up, and are mass pasting when you could just link, yet not a word about the island.
No, you did. You posted a Wikileaks link to an email sent by her, and you didn't explain why it's relevant.
It's not a bit surprising to most people to see Clinton's folk get excited about a dinner with _that_ ritual. I mean, heck, everyone knows that's completely normal right? (I would rather not post her demo video, but it's on yt).
And it's perfectly normal for Bill (and?) to be visiting the unmentionable island.
How about Tony Podesta's taste in art? Totally normal right? (I _really_ cant post that here out of respect for basic norms, I recommend not googling it if you don't want see some extra creepy shit).
Regardless of whether he ever actually said it, remember the quote attributed to Richelieu. Even an honest person's email can be spun to make them look like the greatest villain of history. Or if you prefer the modern reality-show metaphor: everyone has a "loser edit" lurking in their private data.
WikiLeaks basically only publishes "leaks" of people Assange personally dislikes/opposes. That's the definition of a partisan outlet, no matter how much you may dislike it.
Assange himself admitted it was payback,
"This is payback because she's coming after me, but otherwise we disseminate information in a fair and balanced way" doesn't seem plausible to me.
"Can't we just drone strike this guy?" -- Clinton, on Assange
Clearly selling t-shirts is worse though.
B) You'd be biased too if somebody was trying to kill you for doing your job. Furthermore, why is it bad to be biased against a candidate that wants to kill you? Does it interfere with the secrets leaking process? Was Deep Throat's testimony marred by his political convictions?
C) When asked which candidate he preferred Assange said that it's like choosing between Chlamydia and Gonorrhea.
D) If there was a critical dump of Trump emails which he sat on, fair enough. There wasn't.
B) Probably. And it would quite likely influence my choices in what information to release and what to focus on.
C) Ok?
D) How can we know there wasn't data critical of Trump's campaign that Wikileaks sat on? If Wikileaks wasn't selling anti-Hillary merchandise I'd have an easier time believing that there wasn't.
“sources at the State Department,” a vague and anonymous reference that does not yield to verification.
Anonymous sources are unreliable? That seems important to remember...
The WSJ has a record of having anonymous sources whose stories pan out. TruePundit not so much.
Why wouldn't she simply deny it if it wasn't true?
But its a bit ironic to complain about a lack of leaks about the conservatives in an article about Chelsea Manning. President George W. Bush was a conservative president and the leak provided by manning through Wikileaks was criticizing the war that Bush ran. We would not be here talking if Wikileaks did not publish dumps on conservative.
Manning was a mentally troubled individual, who abused their access to sensitive documents and jeopardized national security, and repeatly attempted suicide. That's not a hero.
It's not my opinion, but I have several mil and ex-mil acquiantances and they were quite literally appalled when the sentence was commuted. Most of them are of the 'throw away the key' disposition, feeling that Ms Manning violated all her oaths and put lives at risk.
What would concern me far more is that although a lot of highly illegal activity was exposed by other leaks, Snowden et al not a single person to date has actually had any form of legal sanction to my knowledge. They may as well have not bothered.
Yes, yes he did.
> All he did was violate his oath and the law, and for what?
Public service. It's pretty much the best justification for doing what you mentioned.
Maybe the lesson is if youre choose to take such a big risk for a moral cause you need to take every possible effort to not cause collatoral damage along the way.
> "Bowker is the exclusive U.S. agent for issuing International Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs), a universal method of identifying books in print. (...) It is now owned by Cambridge Information Group."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.R._Bowker
Cambridge Information Group? click
> "Cambridge Information Group (CIG) is a privately owned group of information services and publishing companies and educational institutions."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Information_Group
Ok... that kind of sounds like conflicts of interest waiting to happen. Not to mention ISBNs being the kind of fundamental infrastructure/natural monopoly combination where I definitely would not want to see a for-profit entity be in charge of it.
But that's just my gut-feelings. How does this set-up play out in practice?
In a nutshell they have a monopoly and their fees for licensing are extortionate - and they won't even talk to you unless you're "very serious".
They crushed a startup I consulted with eight years or so ago by playing along and then vastly increasing their fees just prior to launch.
Also, their only API (I haven't checked but I doubt things have changed) is EDI.
So, they have important and valuable data that they don't like to license, and make hard to access when they do.
I don't think that something of such importance should be in the hands of a private entity.
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Shame that he went on to work for Zynga. Talk about wasted potential...
Excellent quote!
Even though it's not the same, and in my opinion still not as great as AC, if you liked that game I can highly recommend Stellaris.
Also.. my apologies for leaning on a Civil Rights figure for an analogy, it's just the first thing that came to mind.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Colvin
If you haven't seen it, I suggest watching Thomas Drake's talk[1] at 29c3.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDM3MqHln8U#t=1451 (although I've linked to Thomas Drake's talk, the other talks by Jesselyn Radack and William Binney in the same video are also worth watching)
Assange, exactly what did he do of heroic? Again, secrecy is a very important weapon in international relations. Just stealing random documents from random actors... I can't see any advantage for people at large, but only for a few among those who were not hit by the randomly-aimed sabotages.
While not being pro-Trump, not at all, I can't see why he should be blamed for sharing selected information with a selected partner (Russia, very recently) while these three guys should be hosannaed.
Did Snowden go to far? Very much worth debate, and I see both sides of the arguments. But did he have a better alternative than leaking? Not one that I can see.
Well, shutting up was an option :-)
Now, exactly, who got better after his revelations? This is a sincere question.
Many of us are now much more skeptical of the honesty of officials, even when they are under oath.
This is overwhelmingly a good thing for democracy.
I think that if HRC had immediately addressed the potential corruption revealed in those emails and stood behind her past actions boldly she'd be president now. She tried to ignore it and blame Russia/Wikileaks for her own words and deeds.
So I think the blame for Trump being elected is HRC's flawed strategy in dealing with the leaked info. It made her seem arrogant and above-the-law.
> anti-science culture
I'm curious what areas you'd point to where you think this is most prevalent. There's been a general decline in enlightenment values in our culture over the past 20 years, replaced by a preference for communities of shared belief. For all issues where science meets policy, holders of power have an incentive to simply create armies of believers rather than rational beings who can weigh the issues for themselves.
I hope I'm never in the same situation. I'd hate to have to live in Russia.
I think that your government getting naked in front of allies is a problem, too.
Getting mad at someone for releasing information that should not be hidden from the people who allow their government to exist, because now other bad guys know the info too, is like getting mad because your girlfriend's friend told her you were cheating on her. It's a shifting of blame, and part of a propaganda campaign for damage control. Your opinion has successfully been bucketed into one of few.
Citation needed.
Clapper: "No, sir.
Wyden: "It does /not/?"
Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps but not wittingly."
Because that is very dangerous and will usually not work.
Forgive me, but to ask this question seems to me a kind of frightening naivety.
> Again, secrecy is a very important weapon in international relations.
You seem to think it is more important that the US has power than that it wields that power justly. That's fine, but if you believe that, don't cloak your beliefs in the language of 'heroism' or 'responsibility'. When you align yourself with the ends of power at any cost, you will have lost that cause already.
I think you are very optimistic about the way the United States and its various instruments handle complaints, respect the law and police themselves.
I am not an optimist. I think most nations are more interested in their material goals than ideological integrity. I also think that model is more consistent with history than the other.
After all - how would a government with such transparency and integrity let its armed forces fire on civilians to begin with?
In my opinion, the leaders who lied to the American people are the ones who put us in an embarrassing position. Manning and Snowden just helped us realize what is going on.
In practice, you can't disclose a country's national secrets without getting involved in realpolitik. Snowden ended up having to seek protection from the Russians. From my perspective, I have absolutely every reason to believe Russian spy agencies (along with many, many other countries) also engage in invasive data collecting. Which means the protection he needed sort of amounts to a "necessary hypocrisy". This protection also IMHO diminishes Snowden's goals -- politicians can now say he is "on the Russian side" and yell "traitor!", and (as the polls show) a large percentage of people will believe them, and will ignore any argument Snowden is making.
Personally, I agree with Snowden's goals, but unfortunately I think he was somewhat naive in his disclosure approach. In a way, I think the Manning / Wikileaks story is playing out the same way -- less regarding Manning, and more how Assange / Wikileaks is increasingly becoming politicized, too.
My understanding is that Snowden intended to flee to South America but was forced to end up in Russia by the Obama administration, likely due to a rapid analysis of the options and the clear PR benefits of the "Russian side" stuff you describe.
The information leaked by Snowden revealed a lot of illegal activity being done by the US government as well as a lot of dishonesty about it. It revealed that Obama is at least as far to the right on surveillance as George W. Bush was, and that a system had been built that put all data collection systems used by the most notorious and corrupt regimes of history to shame.
That is the story. Focusing on Snowden's personality, his motivations, etc., is a distraction from the newsworthy content that should inspire corrective action (and likely criminal prosecution of many officials) via the democratic process.
> You can't disclose a country's national secrets without getting involved in realpolitik
I think this is true, but what we're seeing is that when you mess with the US Government you end up with a big-budget PR team driving the public perception of your actions and defaming your character.
In a sense, it's realpolitik, but in a sinister, preservation of power at all costs sort of way.
The US briefly had an adversarial moment in democracy during the social upheaval of the 1970s, but at present the asymmetry between entrenched power and the average person is larger than ever before.
The biggest cultural accomplishments the entrenched interests have achieved are (in my opinion) the idea that a major party can use the hashtag #resist with a straight face, and the utter demolition of the American left and culture of actual dissent.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/10/nsa_has_under...
Just depends on which leaks and motivations we're talking about.
Did they put them in that position, or did they simply reveal the reprehensible position that the government had assumed?
Sure he established the trend and legitimized Wikileaks, but most of what he released was tactically valuable to enemies of the U.S. Arguably Manning did endanger the lives of U.S. service members and for that I will have a hard time forgiving her/him.
People said that about Snowden too, but because there was no evidence of this it's all just wild speculation.
People still disagree about whether or not John Brown was heroic.
Whether they're seen as heroes or villains will likely depend on which side of the political spectrum one resides. Even now, Manning is considered a hero to most of the left while Snowden isn't and Snowden is a hero to the libertarian-leaning faction of the political right.
Manning's leaks embarrassed the Bush administration and Snowden's leaks embarrassed the Obama administration. Assange ruffled everyone's feathers.
After all of this, Pollard is still in prison.
I stared at him with my mouth hanging open and when the call ended, I asked him why he would do that.
He said that the dealer didn't care because he was small time and no one was listening anyway.
I don't hang out with this friend much anymore but I hope he has since wised up.
enjoy
So out of prison with some pretty big expectations on her back. She'll be a figurehead forever, willingly or not; not an easy life ahead of her.
Including overseas operations.