Hacker News Reader

Comment by darawk | Hacker News Reader

No, but do the war crimes the US committed mean that Assange is not guilty of being a Russian asset?

No and no buts. Talking about Assange being a Russian asset or not is just a bs distraction. The US are the criminals here. Let's focus on that.

The article is about Assange's extradition. What does the US being criminal or not have to do with that?

I'm not talking about the article I'm talking about the context.

You are responding to textbook whataboutism, aka “tu quoque logical fallacy.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I suggest you read the article you linked.

I apologize if I missed something in the thread and misinterpreted it. I did read the link, can you please enlighten me with your interpretation?

Whataboutism is when an argument is presented with a counterargument of hypocrisy, ie literally what the person replying to me was doing. The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are still guilty.

Pardon my ignorance, but just so I understand, when you said “Does that excuse the war crimes that were committed?” Which war crimes were you referring to?

If I understand the thread correctly, you also seem to be committing textbook gaslighting[0]. If I am misinterpreting the thread, please correct me.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Jeez, what's with the Wikipedia links all the time? People drive by, throw a term around, and leave. How am I committing gaslighting? Am I rearranging the furniture in your house while you're away or something?

I should not have said that second part. To break it down, can you please explain to me which war crimes you are referring to, and how they are related to the beginning of this thread?

Probably referring to those Manning exposed thru Wikileaks.

> The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes"

No...they are not protecting themselves. Their crimes have already been exposed. They are prosecuting someone for something that was criminal.

> who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are still guilty.

Ok, and how does that bear on the issue of Assange's extradition? Your response was the whataboutism that Assange shouldn't be extradited because the US committed war crimes.

No, it’s about getting revenge for exposing them and sending a message.

> Your response was the whataboutism that Assange shouldn't be extradited because the US committed war crimes.

Where did I say that?

If you weren't saying that, then what was the point of your comment?

No, that's not at all what that person was doing. They acknowledged the war crimes and then also said he's a criminal that should be dealt with. It would've been whataboutism if he had said that the war crimes don't matter because of XYZ.

I suggest you read the article you linked.

Please review carefully the chain of comments, because it seems there could be some misunderstanding there: consumer451 was answering to darawk, not to you. Maybe instead of "to textbook whataboutism" was meant to be "with textbook whataboutism"?

Otherwise this thread is total nonsense to me. No surprise either...

He was responding to them, saying that they, in turn, were responding to textbook whataboutism, ie my comment.

That's what it seems, but I refused to believe it because then his mind process is totally impenetrable to me.

Yeah, I don't know. I have decided I don't like it when people drop Wikipedia links and leave, at least explain why you think that is.

Not everything is whataboutism. The parent is making a propositional fallacy in the form of a question

"If A then B. B therefore A"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

This is a fair and logical argument. However, in this context, I would still like to know the what the grand parent was referring to when they mentioned “war crimes.”

Btw, personal opinion: I am completely biased against Assange given his lack of openess against everyone but the Democratic Party. I used to think he was one of my heroes, now I think that he is just someone trying to save his own skin. His actions and reading his AMA’s on Reddit really changed my opinion regarding the idea that he might be an unbiased arbiter of truth. Assange is no Snowden.

I believe he s refering to civilian deaths which went undocumented, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak

I believe the hero-worship of such persons is not useful. But they have changed the landscape and raised the bar for transparency from governments worldwide, which is undeniably a good thing.

How is being a Russian asset a crime? Even if he released only documents provided by the Russians and ignored other ones (which is debatable), how is that bad as long as said documents are not forged?

Acting as an undeclared agent of a foreign government is absolutely a crime.

If all non-Americans that work for non-American governments have to declare that fact to America, then there are a lot of criminals in the world.

Has nothing to do with whether he’s American. An Australian living in, I don’t know, the UK or Sweden, but on the payroll of the government of Russia, has to declare that fact to the government of the country in which he resides. Otherwise he can be considered a spy. And no, “being on the payroll” is not limited to being an official employee of or even receiving payment from Russia. Depends on the laws of the host country but in most places it implies simply “working at the direction of” or “receiving compensation from”, including non-monetary compensation. Like, say, hacked emails that you can use to promote your organization.

Look, I am a US civil servant. When I travel internationally I have to use a special passport. It’s maroon instead of the usual blue, and it has a stamp in it that states that I am a representative of the US government and am on official business. And this is exactly why. When I present it at a border crossing, that is an official legal declaration to the country I am visiting that I am a declared agent of a foreign government. If I attemp merely to enter the country using my personal passport I am committing an arrestable offence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com