Getting Julian Assange: The Untold Story | Hacker News Reader

Getting Julian Assange: The Untold Story

johnpilger.com

51 pointsandy_ppp52 comments

This is an illuminating article but unfortunately I think the CIA's campaign to smear and discredit Julian Assange has been highly successful on HN and elsewhere. Many people already disliked him for his libertarian ideology and saw his willingness to be a figurehead for Wikileaks as arrogance. Also, a lot of people saw Wikileaks release of documents and their opinion journalism during elections as giving an unfair advantage to Trump.

  > One of the SMS messages makes clear that one of the
  > women did not want any charges brought against Assange,
  > "but the police were keen on getting a hold on him".
  > She was "shocked" when they arrested him because she
  > only "wanted him to take [an HIV] test". She "did not 
  > want to accuse JA of anything" and "it was the police
  > who made up the charges". In a witness statement, she 
  > is quoted as saying that she had been "railroaded by
  > police and others around her".

This is utterly crazy. How is this not seen as wrongdoing by the police?

  > It is not over, but it is unravelling. The United
  > Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - the
  > tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether
  > governments comply with their human rights obligations
  > - last year ruled that Assange had been detained 
  > unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international
  > law at its apex.

Do powerful governments have to listen to the UN though?

They don't have to in the strictest sense in the same way as they don't have to abide by the Geneva Convention even if they were a signatory. However, in the long term it affects their image as a country, allies trust it less, are less willing to make deals based on good faith, and so on.

Assange has done enough to discredit himself…

Look at how partisan WikiLeaks is - look at the countries that it doesn't publish information on, look at the candidates it doesn't try to discredit

Listen to others who were a key part of Wikileaks talk about Assange's behaviour towards others, look at the comments that his sexual behaviour was going to get him into trouble long before this case blew up.

The CIA may have been after him but ultimately he discredited himself

You shouldn't imprison someone for incorrect political opinions and unsubstantiated gossip about non-criminal bad behaviour.

In any case, I think you're wrong that WikiLeaks doesn't publish information on certain countries [0]. And, I agree that they do have political opinions however it's impossible to avoid this: if you don't think something is political, it's because you share its politics.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as...

> Look at how partisan WikiLeaks is - look at the countries that it doesn't publish information on, look at the candidates it doesn't try to discredit.

Before we get carried away by the attitude: "Johnny does it too...", why don't we focus on the information that has been published. The crimes that have been exposed by Wikileaks ? From a pragmatic point of view , it would be stupid of Wikileaks operatives or anyone in their position to antagonize all sides. Where would Snowden be today if he did not have the Russians to help save his life? In any case, as I have stated, focus on the crimes laid bare before us now. They can always leak more later.

>Listen to others who were a key part of Wikileaks talk about Assange's behaviour towards others, , look at the comments that his sexual behaviour was going to get him into trouble long before this case blew up.

His sexual behavior is irrelevant to the expose.

Do you have any proof that Wikileaks has any information on those countries or that they are conciensely withholding information? Have you ever considered that you might be partisan?

Who don't they publish information on? If you mean Russia they've published quite a bit.

When wikileaks was launched, I thought that Assange was such an idiot that it would never get off the ground. How wrong I was.

Note that Wikileaks did try to redact the material they got. So eventhough they messed it up, they tried to do the right thing.

Wikileaks was supposed to be a platform for leakers. To get their material out. Wikileaks is not supposed to be balanced publication that tries to compile some sort of truth.

So in that sense, given the original goal of wikileaks, they just had to publish those documents during the US elections. It would be different if there was evidence that they got documents damaging to Trump and refused to publish them.

So, Assange is an idiot and best not invited to parties. Wikileaks is probably a bad idea. But none of that warrents a complete abuse of the legal system by Sweden. And also a complete violation of basic european human rights by the UK.

I am aware of zero credible accusation that Wikileaks has suppressed publication of anything, ever. If you are and have any evidence of it, the front page of the new York Times is yours.

> ...I think the CIA's campaign to smear and discredit Julian Assange has been highly successful on HN and elsewhere....

I think not.

Outside of the USA virtually nobody buys into the pathetic attempts of the US establishment to slander Assange,Snowden,Manning and others;(on a personal note, my respect for Obama died the day he referred to Snowden as a "common hacker"). Within the US, perhaps they have had more success. I must point out that this is so because despite the tech credentials and high educational levels of HN (and other website) readers, you still find a fair share 'murica' nationalists.

> Outside of the USA virtually nobody pays heed

HN is very dominantly US (both in sponsorship and membership), so that doesn't really invalidate the point at all.

By curiosity, how do you see sponsorship affecting discussion outcomes? Are people paid by HN sponsors to influence them?

> Wikileaks release of documents and their opinion journalism during elections as giving an unfair advantage to Trump.

This is a fact

As it is a fact that WL "leaked" documents relating to Fillon (before his candidature sank - though not because of WL) in France

So, no, he's not a "neutral party" (though he has an entirely understandable beef with HRC)

The Fillon leaks were not from Wikileaks as far as I know.

Wikileaks Twitter shows that they linked to a search result for "Fillon" in their old releases, which they often do for current topics.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/01/wikileaks-turns-its-att...

But what really did him in (I think) were the Canard Enchainé revelations

That article says exactly what I said :)

They linked to search results - in fact for multiple (opposing) candidates - from their old leaks.

Ah I agree :) But it had some impact at the time

For goodness sake. Wikileaks do not leak. Ever. They are publishers. The verb is publish.

Just keep in mind whether you like Mr Assange's manner and or politics or quite the opposite that his rights are your rights. Support the destruction of his right by all means just be sure you know they'll be gone for you. Both directly, when you need them and indirectly, when someone exposing crime affecting your family needs them. Is it a price you can afford to pay? It's not a one time payment.

Makes several sweeping claims that I have not heard before (case against Assange was corrupt, Hilary Clinton supports ISIS). Would be more convincing if he would support these by evidence from neutral, trustworthy sources.

I wonder if Trump could just manage to find a way to get him by force, meaning enter in the embassy with armed guys and capture him, at the cost of a diplomatic incident, as long as there is no loss of life.

I mean that's exactly the kind of thing I would expect from Trump. I don't know if it is technically possible, and if he would find people to do it.

Let's remove "Trump" from the equation.

You're wondering if one country could invade a second country, for the purposes of invading a third countries embassy.

While that's physically possible, the international ramifications would be immense. It's one thing to bomb weddings in Yemen. It's an entirely different prospect to violate diplomatic immunity on an allies soil.

Nothing in this comment to justify it being downvoted.

Nothing in this one either. I find Hacker News to be militantly Democrat fairly often.

It's HN.

It's easy to down-vote people who have dissenting opinions. Especially if the poster provides facts and evidence to support their opinions.

US politics is become even more of an echo chamber than ever. "My" side is on the side of light, goodness, and rationality. "Their" side is evil, sinister, and denies evidence.

The behavior on HN is just one side-effect of this.

God forbid we treat others with dignity... or assume that they're different, but honest and well-intentioned. Instead, it's better to treat them like scum, make all kinds of false accusations about them.

Not that I've seen a lot of that here.... /s

It's better to treat people well, even if you disagree with their position. It worked for a Daryl Davis:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-klu-klu...

Other than lack of evidence. Well argued anti-wikileaks comments on HN that rely on actual facts don't get down voted. That comment was neither.

That comment ended by being heavily upvoted. Please don't break the HN guidelines by taking threads in this inevitably tedious and offtopic direction.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14386533 and marked it off-topic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com