End of rant. Have a good day.
End of rant. Have a good day.
In short, when you see smart people saying silly things, sometimes it's not due to emergent organic causes.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/02/the-ridiculous-p...
Assange is not held in high esteem by a large number of political allies who know him well. It is obvious from the Laura Poitras documentary, the Andrew O'Hagan LRB article, and the Wikileaks Twitter feed, that he is not worth the deification he receives in much of the hacker crowd. He is perfectly capable of trashing his own reputation and alienating his own friends without the help of a shadowy conspiracy.
Which is not a particularly helpful, or charitable statement.
This happens here. HN is compromised, trying to think a true sentiment exists here is false, you are seeing mostly the carefully curated posts to support us government propaganda.
I have no issue with Wikileaks, and frankly, don't care whether or not they are being funded by Joe Bob, Putin, or the Antichrist.
Assange, however, is a somewhat unpleasant individual, and the allegations against him (the hacking conspiracy) have teeth.
It's rather telling that most of the posts in his defense in this thread believe that his means should not be criminal, because his ends justified them.
Yes, that appeals to a rather popular understanding of justice. But no, that's not how the law works. No, the law isn't fair.
One must also wonder why Assange spends so much time talking to folks like Sean Hannity, Dana Rohrbacher, and Charles C. Johnson.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/19/wherein-wikileaks-brag...
Yes.
There is no process, other than the United States government's own procedures, that prevents the US from extraditing any of its citizens, journalists or otherwise, to other governments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
Probably won't apply to journalists, but there are absolutely limits to American reciprocity in these areas.
Apparently yes.
Do I think they should be?
No, I do not.
Now, can you just take what I posted at face value instead of assuming a whole bunch of other opinions you think I hold?
For example, John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count testified both to the crucial role Wikileaks diplomatic cables played in corroborating many illegal civilian deaths in the Iraq War, and also the huge degree of care and effort Assange and Wikileaks put into carefully redacting identifying information and weighing the moral balance of information that was too important to be fully redacted.
If your comments on Russian disinformation are about the DNC leaked emails, then you’ve unfortunately got it backwards.
Assange and Wikileaks didn’t assist or engender Russian disinformation, rather the DNC members whose behavior was revealed by the emails did that. The DNC did that via their behavior. Assange reported it.
Care to show the example of disinformation disseminated by Assange?
Since the article is about trial monitoring, it seems that your views about WikiLeaks may be the larger non sequitur.
"I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did ..."
What bothers me the most is that Assange only crime in the UK is that he had skip bail from a crime without evidence. Where is the European Court of Justice ? Human Rights ? It's all a political weapon now ?
I don’t know where you live, but at least around California it’s generally accepted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and the war justification was bush league lies.
Yes, but extradition works on the basis that if they committed a crime abroad and it would be a crime in the UK, extradition can typically go ahead. Even if they didn't commit the crime in the UK.
> Where is the European Court of Justice ? Human Rights ?
The European Court of Justice doesn't hear appeals on extradition. It is a competence reserved solely for Member States.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) might hear an appeal if a Convention right is engaged (e.g. the right not to be tortured) so it is possible that an appeal is lodged after this case if extradition is granted, but Assange first needs to appeal to the High Court and then the Supreme Court if that happens.
This is because all domestic remediation routes must be exhausted before the ECtHR will hear a case. In any event, the ECtHR cannot directly block an extradition: they can only order the State to pay damages.
The only ultimate court in the UK that can block any extradition is the Supreme Court.
Your condescending framing that suggests anyone who doesn't agree with your political analysis isn't sharp is a quintessential example of what is wrong with political discussion in today's era.
You didn't present any facts or arguments, you simply invoked a tired political virtue-signal to let everyone know where you stand on Assange while simultaneously expressing disdain for those who don't agree with you, all without addressing any specifics. Bravo.
I'm not seeing that in the comments (and there aren't that many at present). Most people seem critical of this and/or express cynicism about the process.
WRT not supporting what Assange did, I didn't notice anyone (as I type) saying anything specific about it, negative or otherwise.
Those comments are getting really tiring and it's disappointing to see this place accept ad hominems against the source over and over in those threads instead of actually discussing the trial.
Ofc complaining about comment quality isn't new, that's existed before I started coming here.
Hn does a pretty good job of being off topic in threads but it's the nastiness of the comments that degrades the quality of conversation (I myself am guilty of this too, and I need to work on that).
Either the disinformation campaign has been spectacularly successful, a lot of HN commenters are truly daft enough to let alleged cat hygiene decide their opinion on a person's fate, or there is really some deliberate misinformation going on specifically in these threads. Maybe a combination of the three.
Regardless, it disheartens me greatly to see the state power of the US used like this. Truly removes the veil of supposedly unailenable democratic rights.
I'm seeing it everytime someone prefaces their comment with something along the lines of:
"I'm not an Assange supporter But ..."
in fact you're comment is really no different:
> not supporting what Assange did, I didn't
Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer?
Edit: In fact prefacing with "I'm not an Assange supporter but..." sounds to me like someone trying to give their argument in support of him/against the US/UK governments more weight, ie, even people who aren't the usual suspect fans of his are disturbed by what's going on.
People do this all the time on any subject, it's a weak rhetorical device. "I'm not one to support Javascript but", "I don't normally disagree with @pmachinery but".
We should just try to make our point without trying to artificially weigh it with rhetoric.
I have complex views of Assange.
1. I think the extradition hearings are bizarre and it’s hard to consider them a fair trial.
2. I support Assanges long term goal of western democracies being open and accountable, rather than being based on secrets and lies.
3. I don’t know whether Assange’s tactics are moving us towards or away from that goal.
It seems like he has taken an anti-American stance and acted intentionally to undermine the US, presumably because he sees the US as the most hypocritical geopolitical actor.
He may be accurate in his assessment, but the adversaries of the US who will exploit the power vacuum are Russia and China, who are either worse or at least as bad as the US when it comes to secrets and lies, and so it’s not at all obvious that his tactics support his goal. I’d like to hope that they ultimately do cause some kind of positive realignment, but that is not a foregone conclusion.
Forcing someone to betray their principles in perceived self defense and then acting surprised is akin to gaslighting. Again, it’s not clear that this is a helpful move, but maybe it is.
I think it’s reasonable to say he has drawn attention to insecurities of both the US and the UK, but they seem like predicable and well founded insecurities.
Calling Assange a journalist is like calling Rupert Murdoch a journalist.
Assange is not a journalist, nor is he a reporter. Bear with me - this is a ‘pro Assange’ point.
He is a publisher with an intelligence gathering network.
Recognizing this doesn’t mean it’s right that he should be prosecuted.
In fact it sheds light on something more sinister - actual journalists don’t report the things that Assange published, because their publishers don’t want them to.
Publishers in general are self-censoring in order to stay on good terms with governments and other powerful interests.
Organizations calling Assange a ‘journalist’, especially any mainstream publishers, are actually colluding to deflect attention from this fact, and co-opting support for Assange, when in fact they are collaborating with governments and are the very reason Wikileaks was necessary in the first place.
Reducing what’s going on to ‘Assange as martyr’, ‘look at this kangaroo court’, ‘This is about silencing journalists’, does nothing to advance Assange’s actual goal.
I think the comparison is not exactly right, Wikileaks is very far from being a media empire, and Assange is very far from using it as a tool in his own interest. In my opinion, calling Assange a journalist is like calling a news room editor a journalist, as in: he is one.
However I disagree with your reframing. News room editors answer to the publisher (I.e. whoever owns the publishing organization), and generally have been promoted from the ranks of journalists.
None of that is true about Assange. He was never a journalist and never did investigative reporting, or any of the other things a journalist normally does.
He did not answer to a publisher. He built and controlled the publishing platform, and therefore is a publisher.
He was a publisher who was willing not to self-censor.
If we incorrectly call Assange a journalist, and we say that he served the public good by ‘reporting’ what other journalists would not, then we are laying the blame for the lack of accountability in our society at the feet of journalists.
That’s just not accurate.
Assange has only been able to accomplish anything because he is a publisher. Journalists simply cannot do what he did, because they answer to publishers.
Assange is not a journalist. He is a publisher.
https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/16/pentagon-papers-ellsberg-...
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
They talk about Wikileaks, his publishing organization, working as a peer in cooperation with the NYT, the Guardian, and other publishers. They describe his priorities and concerns and the protocols he wanted to use.
All of these are consistent with Assange as the creator of Wikileaks standing as a publisher.
Also, that testimony looks very good for Assange.
I'm pretty sure I read in the articles covering the hearings that some journalist organizations were claiming he is one. Found a mention in day 8 of the hearings reporting (search for mentions of Chelsea Manning): https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
I’m not arguing that he’s not involved in editorial decisions.
I am arguing that it’s misleading to call him a journalist. That’s not why he matters.
People are calling him a journalist because they hope it will save his life. I hope it does too.
I just think that if we care about his overall goal, we should see him as a publisher - because that’s the work he has done that matters.
Forcing someone to betray their principles in perceived self defense and then acting surprised is akin to gaslighting
This does not make sense to me and seems to amount to blaming Assange for the hunt he was subjected to.
I think it’s reasonable to say he has drawn attention to insecurities of both the US and the UK, but they seem like predicable and well founded insecurities.
So the US and the UK are persons with their own feelings that we should respect ?
I’m not blaming Assange for what he’s being subjected to.
On the other hand I also don’t think he or anyone else would imagine that there wouldn’t be a response to a perceived threat.
I may agree with him that we should live in a society that lives up to its ideals.
However we both know it doesn’t, and national security fears over whistleblowers are not necessarily unfounded.
I’m not suggesting he’s to blame for an unfair trial. However it’s also clear that he knew his actions would be seen as anti-American, and indeed I presume he would stand by those actions and that assessment of America. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that he finds himself in this position. In many ways this confirms what he has been saying. The question is - is this choice of his going to move us in a positive direction?
I am quite unsure of that.
I agree that we need more words for the concept of gaslighting- there are lots of nuances around it.
As for ‘insecurities’ I do mean that as a psychological analogy, but I think it’s a good way to look at it.
I’m not arguing that we should respect the U.K. or the US as people who have feelings.
I’m saying that like a person with insecurities, there are actions which elicit a threat response from countries.
I’m also saying that, just like a person, these may or may not be reflective of reality. If they are, then a defensive response is appropriate, even if incongruent with our higher ideals for who the person or country aspires to be.
Everyone sucks here?
I can't speak for anybody else, but I consider it a valid worry
Ok perhaps not FBI breaking down your door at 3am, but for sure "earn your place" on a list, in some three-letter-dept, and your name will stay there forever. And one day, on your way back from vacation to country XYZ that is not the favorite of the sitting (at the time) president you may be greeted by people in uniforms wanting to scan you laptop, phone, etc.
It has happened before, so yes it is a valid worry.
But it remains a fact that he chose to spill damaging information about one side and not the other, even though he had information on both. Unfortunately for him, the side he helped turns out to be just as eager for his head on a pike as the other would have been.
He hated Clinton since the diplomatic cable leak, and wanted to damage her, but never thought Trump would win.
Disclaimer: superficial layman's take on matters.
Stating things are facts don't make them facts; thats an objective fact.
Anyway, I used to read Assange when he was more of a crypto/phreak, and he is, for lack of a better term, a bit of a fucking asshole. That said though, and I'm going to make a controversial statement here, but one I think is truthful, but the biggest problem now with the Assange case is the Russia-gate propaganda added him to the list, so now a large swath of people who would normally support him now still off the cuff beleive he "helped Trump" by "working with the Russians" (or some variation thereof), and because the Russiagate narrative is now so entrenched in the left, it causes a huge cognitive dissonance where they are more likely to choose the mob/tribe over principle. It's worth noting that this can also be considered a survival technique in this cancel culture world, so I try not to judge too harshly, it just gets tiring hearing the disinfo about Assange repeated ad nauseum.
It's obvious that the RussiaGate campaign is really a smear campaign used to take down enemies left and right if you pay close attention, e.g. used against Bernie Sanders who is obviously not a Russian shill, but I wish someone would put together a sourced timeline detailing the nature of the campaign, as I've got so many smart friends who fell for it and can't be convinced otherwise in a two minute discussion over cocktails.
I have often found creating just basic timelines (just org files with dates as headings) has really helped me understand and find novel insights into issues of a convtroversial nature, so I think you are on to something.
This will generate from textual data I believe.
The only people that the government has historically been able to prosecute are government employees who leak documents, but publishers have been inviolate. That's why the prosecution of Assange is such a big deal: the US government is trying to establish a precedent that it can go after publishers, not just leakers.
Are you crazy? Why WOULDN'T you be worried about that?
The fact is, there has been at work in society an implicit assumption that given limited resources to delegate, those resources get delegated toward actions that communicate the most in terms of message to the greatest number of people be it positive or negative in nature.
This message to my sensibilities is unambiguously clear. Poke the dragon, get the fire. No semblance of law and order will really save you, because everything is always open to interpretation to get things done and the cost of mistakes having been made in the past are very easy to brush off for the institution, but life destroying for the victim.
Dig 2 graves before ye set off on your crusade, for ye journey as much to your own end as that of your enemy. Whether or not you believe personally that's a tenable arrangement matters not a lick until such time as you can marshal enough collective social/political capital to change it.
Even that though is no guarantee. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."--Every imperiled government ever
The geopolitical system is as much an organism as we are it's cells. The task of a Statesman is to try to direct this behemoth without undue cost in human lives through wise and fruitful policy, diplomatic, and strategic decisions to keep the collective organism alive and in good standing amongst it's neighbors/rivals.
I cannot say I've ever seen good Statesmanship in my life. I hazard few left alive have, but I can only hope the low point we seem to have collectively hit is a local maxima, and keep on trucking.
I'm still hoping that Assange may surprise us with a sudden reversal as one of these beasts comes to it's senses and remembers the values it purportedly stands for, but I'm not holding my breath.
For me, Assange is
1) Asshole
2) Possibly mentally ill at this point
3) Someone who once greatly advanced journalism and whistleblowing. Even bad journalist deserves protections of a journalist.
4) A person who might have crossed the line from journalism and even his own principles. If he did entangle himself in more than just publishing information being journalist status should not protect him (like assisting or promoting hacking to Dem servers).
5) Political partisan hack supporting Trump.
6) He is also a person who needs to be treated fairly no matter what he did or didn't do.
If you find fault with him for other reasons that is fine, but the core issue here seems to be one of of ‘do you believe that there is such a natural right?’, and not one of ‘do you believe Assange is a likable person?’.
If you’re fine with governments using extrajudicial systems to exact revenge on whistleblowers in distant lands then it really doesn’t matter what you think about his personal behavior.
If on the other hand you think there is such an inherent human value, it’s conversely difficult to justify his current treatment.
Given the same treatment now do you think Chris Cuomo, Rachael Maddow, or Don Lemmon would have done?
Now the point about I may have done same thing given the same actors against me - does not make it house arrest.
I'm not intimately familiar with those three particular journalists, but it's far from unheard of for American journalists to go to jail protecting their principles. And I'd point out that it's even more common for them to argue for their principles in court, which Assange is trying his hardest to avoid.
Or do you think that whistleblowing is so fundamental that it supersedes all normal laws?
Whistleblowing is in fact protected, by law, in many circumstances, at least in the US. That doesn't mean that you can stomp all over other laws, and plead whistleblowing. The other laws also still apply.
In this case they demand the extradition of Assange for supposedly having done some minor crime, but in the past the US have refused to extradite their people wanted for major crimes, like manslaughter, which were proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
For example, one of the cases that I am aware of happened some years ago at the US embassy from Bucharest, Romania.
Someone from the military personnel of the US embassy has driven a SUV while drunk and he hit a taxi cab killing the passenger. The American ran away from the accident place and in a few hours he was smuggled from the country by the embassy, so when the police came in the morning to arrest him he could no longer be found.
There was absolutely no doubt about his guilt, but nevertheless the US refused to extradite him and he was never punished for taking a human life.
There have been many such cases with US citizens in many countries, so whenever the US demands that other countries should extradite their people for supposedly breaking US laws, the US government shows extreme shamelessness, by asking others to do what the US will not do.
Unfortunately there are many servile foreign governments who accept this asymmetry in their relationship with the US.
On the subject of the charges, since you brought it up:
How can the US reasonably charge him with espionage? Has Assange ever even been to the US?
If we can charge a foreign reporter with espionage for the mere publication of something we consider secret, and force their international extradition, how would we feel about a foreign government doing the same to one of our citizens?
For instance, if Australia were to coerce the UK to arrest and extradite the publisher of the New York Times for prosecution under their laws for printing a story they didn't like for some reason.
However, I think it's entirely defensible that he lost his asylum in Ecuador, because that's up to the good graces of Ecuador and they didn't owe him anything, and it's entirely defensible that he faced the threat of extradition to Sweden for a sexual assault trial because those charges were credible. (I don't know if they are true or not, but that's what a trial would be for, and they don't seem to have been so specious that a trial itself would be unjust.)
This makes it hard for me to summarize my opinion as either agreeing or disagreeing with his current treatment.
If he was not perceived to be by some as #5 he would be all over CNN right now.
I think that "reddit style" commenting brings out the extremes in people, everytime I actually talk to someone face-to-face they seem to be less extreme than what they appear to be on the internet.