Hacker News Reader

> all around the world including Russia political leaders of authoritarian countries trying to sell bullshit like every single problem their regime has is caused by some US conspiracy.

This "bullshit" has a Pentagon-sized kernel of truth to it.

Washington is the only regime with hundreds of foreign military bases.

Washington is the only regime that directly funnels hundreds of millions of dollars in resources to foreign rebel groups through channels such as NED, DRL.

Washington is the only regime capable of unilaterally blockading entire economies through crushing sanctions.

So yes, it does really matter to 90%+ of the world population if the "journalists" they trust are actually paid couriers of Washington's foreign agendas.

This is a fair take. I appreciate your input.

Your first post should not have been removed, it did not violate any rules

"There is absolutely no point of arguing who working for whom - only facts are important."

I don't think so.

There's generally no such thing as 'individual blocks of truth' as independent things. The truth is always contextual.

New Orgs have biases that exhibit themselves in all sorts of ways, and they matter.

I'm not fully sure if either of these things are fully true but if 1) Assange was actively trying to help people steal sensitive information form the US and 2) has some kind of implied relationship with an American adversary whereupon they support him politically or with information - and whereby he returns the favour by suppressing leaks on their behalf - then what does this look like? This person basically becomes a foreign agent, intent on discrediting one party over another. The 'facts' released are ultimately selective. It'd be 'journalism' in the same way that Putin could use his powers to 'uncover' information and then frame and leak the information selectively. Again: I don't know if 1 and 2 are true.

I'm also not fully on board with the notion that information about Assange is suppressed in the conspiratorial sense it'd be interesting to see more behind the scenes mechanics of how that might work.

> There's generally no such thing as 'individual blocks of truth' as independent things. The truth is always contextual.

On the one hand, I absolutely agree with this statement in isolation. On the other, I don’t need him to be unbiased, as he isn’t the only journalist in the world — if he wants (or needs) to keep Russia happy, so long as he has a counterpart that doesn’t, between them the public is informed.

Yes. And why is the USA trying to take him into custody? While in the USA for a US citizen to work as a foreign agent is illegal, I fail to see why Assange, who is a citizen of Australia and mostly has resided in other countries, should be arrested by yet another country and shipped to the USA. Did Assange commit a crime in the USA? Wasn't it Manning who got the supposed "classified" info and gave it to Assange?

How about a little goddamn proof? How about a valid legal case that follows the laws of the USA? This whole Assange thing is just a streaming shit-show of nonsense and a shameful attempt to drive one man to ruin and worse.

Both Democrats and Republicans have other problems to worry about every day b/c they don't have their acts together. All this trouble comes b/c a cabal of jerks somewhere (probably the intelligence community) has a hard-on to fuck Assange over and is somehow tolerated.

Just for comparison: would it be ethical for the USA to bushwhack and extradite a street vendor in Egypt who cries "Kill the USA!" and burns Uncle Sam in effigy? Hell No! This stuff happens all the time. The USA bureaucracy is like an information sieve. If you wanna fix it, find a better way to work.

Give Assange his freedom. Drag into the sunlight those fools who are perpetuating this nonsense and terminate their employment. Brand their foreheads with a giant letter "A" so they're identifiable forever. Anything Assange has revealed is by now "water under the bridge". To use another metaphor, "the genie is out of the bottle" and you can't put it back. Grow up!

> How about a little goddamn proof? How about a valid legal case that follows the laws of the USA?

In theory, that’d be the job of the court case he’s fighting an extradition to not face.

And, to be clear where I stand, in the (unlikely) event that anyone’s secret services care what I think, they’d have to be a lot more open and honest about their mistakes for me to trust them when they say “we need X secret, trust us” — almost everything that people like me get to hear about them are their mistakes, and a whole lot of hubris to go with those mistakes; while I like to assume they can’t all be that bad, the fact is I can only form opinions by what I learn, and whatever good any of them might do is kept secret (or so vague it might as well be) and is unlearnable, while the bad stuff is writ large.

(None of this is relevant to the judicial systems in any country or Assange).

Water under the bridge or not, they don't want people doing it again or supporting Russia. It could be as much as a message to the next potential Assange - don't even try. If you believe he's an enemy of your interests and working with your enemy to hurt you, I have a hard time seeing a calculation they would make that says leave him alone since what's done is done. They are going to make his life miserable forever and hope it's a deterrent. That's the realpolitik of the situation - morals ignored.

"And why is the USA trying to take him into custody? "

Because Assange was ostensibly helping someone steal classified information. These allegations are well known.

"How about a little goddamn proof? "

They literally have text messages of him encouraging and ostensibly helping someone to steal information. This is also well known.

"How about a valid legal case that follows the laws of the USA?"

That's what's happening: they are extraditing him so that the evidence can be put on the table and we can see what's what. This is well known.

"Give Assange his freedom. "

He has his freedom. He's possibly comitted a crime, which is why he's going to court.

I think your comment implies an general ignorance of the situation.

He's not a US citizen, he was outside the USA. So what?

If we tried to arrest every person outside the USA who is trying to do something to/in the USA we'd have to put out arrest warrants for millions of people. We'd be, and are, the laughingstock of the diplomatic world.

Aside: we apparently assassinate hundreds of individuals outside the USA every year (something that Obama complained about IIRC ) with God-knows-what justification. We're well on our way down the Road to Ruin.

I'm hardly a bleeding-heart, but for the USA intelligence agencies to dog Assange to death is immoral, unethical and illegal even under our legal system.

Pursuing Assange is the worst of all causes: a fishing expedition, a routine overextension of international and national law, legal malpractice, and a giant fool's errand for every man involved in this.

Only a psychopath would put the pursuit of Assange on their resume. Of course we likely have plenty of those working for us. Apparently they float to the top, like shit.

jollybean says>"I think your comment implies an general ignorance of the situation."

Nope. But your reasoning above amply demonstrates a bit of how the powers-that-be twist language, logic and reason to justify contemptible behavior and justify crushing an individual. You should write an "Anti-Declaration of Independence" for spies that outlines their grievances against free agents and how they should be able to kill/maim/wound/harm anyone, anywhere just b/c they are irritated with those agents' behavior.

An honest leader would publicly fire with malice every asshole who participated in or encouraged this shitfest and make sure the government never employed them again. Of course, that would be a bit (but only a bit) similar to doing to them what is being done to Assange! Perhaps that would be justice. I'll have to think about it.

You're not grounded in material reality of the situation.

When a crime is committed, justice is pursued.

The nationality of the individual doesn't matter that much. American or not, if they've committed a crime against the US, then they will face justice.

If he possibly raped a woman in Sweden, then he's extradited to Sweden to face justice for that crime.

If he possibly robbed someone in Switzerland, then he's extradited to face justice there.

Since it looks like he conspired with Pt. Manning to steal classified data from the US Military, he's going to be extradited to the US to face trial.

" how the powers-that-be twist language, logic and reason to justify contemptible behavior and justify crushing an individual."

This is not some YouTube conspiracy story, for the most part it's really not that complicated.

There is already reasonable evidence in the public domain that a crime was committed, he's going to have to get a lawyer and face a judge so we can find out the truth.

I see no crime. Find another way to employ the multitude of overpaid and useless intelligence agents than siccing(1) them on the citizens of the USA and other nations.

The laws of the USA apply only within the boundaries of the USA with minor exceptions by treaty. Application of USA law outside the USA is illegal, delusional and megalomanical. Furthermore, other nations will either object (the only reasonable response) or expect full reciprocation. Imagine life in a country where USA, French, British, Scottish, South African, Russian, Chinese, etc. law all simultaneously applied? Your suggestions are nonsensical and self-contradictory.

(1) To sic, to attack (used especially in commanding a dog):to incite to attack (usually followed by on).

Ironically, though the latter’s position is reversed with regard to Assange himself and the former’s famous intervention in the domestic affairs of other sovereign nations, Henry Kissinger would agree with you that law stops at the border, while Amnesty International would disagree and say certain crimes have universal justification.

And indeed, the USA isn’t the only nation claiming universal jurisdiction for various offences.

The truth might be sometimes contextual but not most of the time.

I think it's would make sense to take into account who specific person working for in situation when we have proven facts about them. Unfortunately it's almost always impossible to get those unbiased facts since there is so much of misinformation everywhere.

And even if you knew for sure that Assange knowingly working for Russia you will never know why he doing it. After all US wants to get him on US soil and to put him in prison (for 300 years) to make him an example of US power and "justice".

And on other hand Putin's regime can just threat to kill his friends and family since they totally capable of doing it, no defending against it in UK court.

Oh, looks like i posted some funny conspiracy here. Conclusion: when we try to dig into information about specific people we end up with conspiracy mess. That information impossible to check and it doesn't prove anything.

On other side when activists or journalists publish stories about something like war crime, PRISM or Panama Papers facts can usually be verified because when it's leaked it's too big to hide.