Also as far as I know people don't realize anything wikileaks ever released has been refuted or proven false. There are google DKIM keys on all the legally and morally incriminating emails.
Wikileaks has almost definitely influenced the result of Kenyan election in 2007 by releasing the Kroll report about vast corruption.
Assange even got an Amnesty International award for leaking information then. He was a hero back then but suddenly when the shoe is on the other foot, he's a villain.
This takes a lot of work. Making sure your sources are protected takes a lot of work and sadly, there is only so much attention people spend on leaks.
You might not want to follow and give credence to such outlets, but they still have freedom of speech, else the credibility of everybody is questioned.
That’s a pretty big accusation! Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Why have there never been any leaks with an attached note calling out WL for failure to release?
Whether the material released is selective or the material feed to WL is selective the result is Wikileaks release clearly favored one side.
Assange is also known to have a proclivity for Russia
I can. But... this isn’t happening in a vacuum and there is context to this situation.
While it seems to benefit the public, WL also is aimed at taking particular groups down. The groups being shielded are not “good”. Ultimately “public benefit” is questionable. You don’t know my political beliefs and I made no reference to them...
Every time a big leak happens, the news cooks up a new narrative about who Wikileaks is and what their goals and motivations are. And every time it's just something the editor wants to be true. Its a better story for him to be the hero or the villain. But if you frame the actions of what wikileaks said they were going to do (publish verifiable leaks much more indiscriminately than the press), they've been pretty consistent.
Why have zero of these dumps been released with an accompanying note calling out Wikileaks?
How do you know what people leak to WL? do you work for WL?
I've heard this claim stated a few times as fact but I haven't actually seen anything yet yo back it up.
Back in the day he was a champion on the progressive side for a while with all the 2nd fake Iraq war stuff and dumping all of Sarah Palin's emails among other things.
I might be partially wrong on the Russia claim. There is some Russia stuff but it looks like they did not publish the huge Russia dump they claimed to have in 2010 but supposedly it was released to a Russian newspaper.
Even if he was innocent of the crime which he personally chose to avoid defending himself against in court — and hiding in an embassy until the statute of limitations expires makes me think otherwise — the fact that he definitely skipped bail and the fact that he’s living freely in an embassy not a prison both independently means he’s neither “innocently” nor “imprisoned”.
If Sweden is serious about investigating sex crimes against the vulnerable they need to dig in all directions to try to find the networks of foreign spies tasked with projects like putting vulnerble women into groups the Americans don't like and making sure something happens.
But they will overlook crimes to protect those allies and follow their playbook to help those allies. So anyone against the Americans would be a fool to deal with the Swedish system if they were entraped only to end up extradited to hell.
The latest news doesn't make Assange any worse. It makes it more transparent how sick and worthless the supposed free world is. Just another bunch of kangaroo courts and a thin veneer over secret police working illegally but with impunity to harm the rights of whoever necessary for their "more important" state secrets, aka system of corruption.
Simultaneously true (IMO) and irrelevant.
All the evidence points to Assange being the victim of state sponsored organized crime that won't be investigated and he would be an idiot to "defend himself", etc, when it is clear they will move to military tribunals or murder him in confinement if that fits their problems.
Quote:
“””as a matter of fact, and looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person (Mr Assange) passes the threshold of being an accused person and is wanted for prosecution”””
In normal extradition treaties, being in the UK was safe from being in anyone's custody which is the ideal for no possibility of the US starting an extradition.
No one can know the specifics of the US' soft power and assets except the US, and even then only in some abstract collective sense.
It does. IIRC this was specifically referenced by one of the judges. Even if not explicitly mentioned, by my reading the accusations included the following offences from the 2003 Sexual Offences Act:
* Rape
* Assault by penetration
* Sexual assault
With at least one reference to section 75/2/d “Evidential presumptions about consent”
Now I’m not a lawyer, but actual lawyers did in fact argue this case and I’m going with what they said.
Further to your new points, he had legal representation from human multiple rights specialists including from a lawyer with the title of Queen’s Council.
Skipping bail also cost his supporters £93,500. He was demonstrably not short of favours.
No, I don’t see his behaviour as “rational”. Rather I see it as arrogant, a person who thinks he knows more than he does, the kind of person who ends up the subject of a notalwaysright.com post.
(Unlike Manning and Snowden, about whom I am rather positive.)
If you know it, you must have it. So, please, dump it and publish a magnet link.