Comment by seppin | Hacker News Reader

Comment by seppin | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> And they are free to coordinate with a political campaign, they have the freedom of assembly as well as of the press.

lol. "None of these things are crimes" is not the solid argument you think it is. To be a useful idiot aiding an autocratic government in their intelligence operations might not be technically illegal, but you give up all pretense of being "journalists" when you do so.

> His discussions about Wikileaks weren't illegal

Again, not what we are talking about. I'll take your constant efforts to move the goal posts from what constitutes journalism to what constitutes a crime as a tacit admission you don't have a leg to stand on.

> Daniel Ellsberg

A famous leaker is pro-leaker, what a shocking revelation. Difference is all of the pentagon papers were relevant to the ongoing crime of the Vietnam War. 95% of what Snowden leaked had nothing to do with domestic surveillance. Funny how that's never mentioned.

Also, maybe listen to people that actually know what they're talking about in 2020. Here's a lawyer that specializes in representing intel officers in whistleblower cases, talking about how Snowden did have options, and it's a lie to say otherwise.

https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status/1339383062120062978

He chose to run, he chose to avoid the consequences of his actions. And in more simple terms, a whistleblower is a legal term for something he chose not to be. He leaked, then ran away. Calling him a whistleblower is an insult to the brave people that actually did seek whistleblower protection in serious matters and were willing to testify and face the consequences.

>but you give up all pretense of being "journalists" when you do so

I do not have any idea what you consider to be journalism. Why would being a useful idiot make publishing politically relevant information eliminate your pretense of being a "journalist?"

>Again, not what we are talking about.

Then explain how Stone's indictment for spying is in anyway relevant to our discussion? I assumed you brought it up to claim Assange's actions were illegal, making prosecuting his actions not violate his freedom of the press. You just wanted to show he was in contact with GOP leaders?

>famous leaker is pro-leaker, what a shocking revelation

The relevant part was a judge saying he couldn't explain his actions. Assange's case was similarly run. They had no hope of a fair trial.

I had not heard of Zaid, my research pulled up this exchange he had though

>What result could Snowden have expected had he covered the bases and his butt by approaching an inspector general’s office or congressional committees?

And replied

>“Candidly,” Zaid said, “he likely would have been frustrated immensely with the lack of results from either, given the current posture.”

Though he's a vocal critic of Snowden, even he found it unlikely that the "proper channels" would have netted results.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/o...

And on the subject of moving goal posts, why have you changed from trying to show them as Russian agents to not journalists/whistleblowers?

> I do not have any idea what you consider to be journalism

Not being part of an information warfare campaign of an autocratic country's intelligence service, as we have definitive proof Wikileaks was. The fact that you keep saying this is fine and totally par for the course (also weirdly repeating that the DNC's personal correspondence about ordering pizza and shit-talking each other is 'politically relevant') makes me think you are either far too partisan in your admiration of Assange to discuss this objectively or you just don't understand what the journalism industry is. I don't really care which is true at this point.

You are also misrepresenting what Zaid has said, repeatedly. Being a whistleblower is not an easy thing and not without consequences, but Snowden didn't even attempt to become one. Which is why referring to him as such is misleading at best, and cynically misrepresenting what happened for ideological reasons at worst.

>Not being part of an information warfare campaign of an autocratic country's intelligence service, as we have definitive proof Wikileaks was

So because a foreign intelligence group took advantage of a "useful idiot" they aren't journalists? Their actions don't matter? Do you feel the same towards writers being used by the CIA to spread their stories?

I fully admit that some editing of the leaks would have been preferred, but I can also see how that would be difficult in their position and it would be used to cast further doubt upon them. Publishing them as is still qualifies as journalism.

Oh, and I personally find Assange to be an abhorrent person. He's egotistical, racist, and much of those sexual assault claims seem likely. His right to a free press still should not be trampled.

>You are also misrepresenting what Zaid has said, repeatedly.

By directly quoting him while providing the context? Maybe he's right and some set of actions could have put Snowden in a better position today. As things stand, Snowden would not receive a fair trial, as Assange is not.

> Do you feel the same towards writers being used by the CIA to spread their stories?

As per the previous question, it appears you don't understand what journalism is. Journalists report stories as objectively as possible, they don't play an active and knowing role in foreign intelligence operations. Surely the NYT and WaPo have played roles in furthering propaganda before (Iraq War), but they weren't co-conspirators. And it wasn't a foreign spy agency feeding them stolen materials to leak for destructive purposes. Big difference(s).

IF Wikileaks actually were journalists, they'd have a hell of a story to write about how their bipolar manic founder had been coopted by an autocratic intelligence agency to do their bidding, throwing away years of good work to actually expose the bad behavior of criminal governments.

I'd read that story.

> As things stand, Snowden would not receive a fair trial, as Assange is not.

Yeah that's not what he said. He said Snowden would face the full wrath of the US Gov (true) but that he's been able to protect others (in the last year even) that had the same pressures. The idea that Snowden "had no choice" is a ridiculous myth believed only by those who see him as a hero first (as part of their general world view), then figure out the facts of the matter later on.

>they don't play an active and knowing role in foreign intelligence operations

Let's recap the evidence you have provided showing he played a "active and knowing role." First, that his show aired on RT. Second, that Wikileaks published the information they received. That is not a convincing argument.

If further evidence did emerge clearly showing Assange knowingly and actively assisting Russia, my position on the legality of his actions may change, and punishing him would not violate his rights.

>And it wasn't a foreign spy agency feeding them stolen materials to leak for destructive purposes

No, but many of the CIA's worldwide operations are exactly that. Plus, I don't find a domestic spy agency feeding them stolen materials for destructive purposes much better.

>Yeah that's not what he said

Those are my words, based on similar trials I have mentioned. He may have had other choices, at this point he would not receive a fair trial. Zaid already believes he deserves the punishment, like you do, so you both seem unconcerned about whether his trial would be fair.

> First, that his show aired on RT

I'm done with this bad faith nonsense, i've addressed the multiple people trying to shift the conversation away from what I said towards RT.

Assange, the guy that promised us all he would "open governments" takes his orders from a murderous KGB thug.

And he has no end of people still willing to make excuses for him (that's you).

Not believing he's a Kremlin agent without evidence isn't making excuses for him.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com