Hacker News Reader

Comment by squarefoot | Hacker News Reader

The thing has been so deeply politicized that assuming things will end up as they should, Assange should fear for his life as a free man anyway; I'm sure he couldn't even think of visiting the US then fly away alive. After all that propaganda depicting him as enemy of the US, chances are that some thugs, whether because batshit crazy, or following orders, could attempt to kill him anyway. Possibly also at home in Australia. The same applies to Edward Snowden: should he get the pardon one day, he'd still be a target for someone.

No matter how it ends, these guys have been already punished enough, and by forcing them to live in fear, some of that punishment will last forever.

View on HN

I’m not so sure about that. There’s always the danger of making someone a martyr: I’d argue that both Snowden and Assange have passed their “impact peak” for want of a better term. They aren’t going to be able to repeat previous acts because they’re simply too well known now. If they were freed they would probably make public statements that antagonise folks but not much more. On the other hand, if they were killed they’d become a rallying cry. I’m not exactly tuned into batshit crazy circles but I can’t imagine there being all that much focus on Assange these days.

You’re not wrong about the general danger of this hyper-politicised era, though. To my mind the biggest danger is if a Supreme Court justice gets targeted. Feels entirely plausible, I have to assume (hope?) there are extensive security precautions taken behind the scenes.

Someone once explained to me the strategy of the US (and other govs).

They want to discourage future dissidents by making an example of people who oppose the status quo. They want the prospect of being a whistleblower to be as unpleasant as possible, without creating a martyr for people to rally around.

So they typically don't just kill the person. They might use poison to maim an adversary (Yushchenko, Litvinenko, ..). Make the person disappear. Discredit them. Shape the public opinion. Paint them as traitors. Countries have their own flavor, but it's basically the same playbook.

Making life hard for Snowden and Assange has a chilling effect for all people thinking about turning against their governments.

This is not true.

The Abu Garib whistleblower was not punished, he was protected.

Some of the actions of Manning and Assage fell way outside the prospect of 'Whiste blowing'.

Assange is being put to trial because preliminary evidence indicates that he was active participant in helping Manning in his activities and not just an agent of the press.

(You'll notice that the 'New York Times' Editors are not going to trial for things that they published).

The trial will result in either his acquittal or not.

That's it.

The US doesn't poison people for 'leaking revenge'.

even if you subscribe to the belief that the us doesn't poison people for 'leaking revenge,' there is still something to say about the legal intimidation tactics used to discourage dissidence.

just a while back, Rebekah Jones, the Floridian data scientist who leaked private COVID information to Florida emergency personnel, had her home raided. there's no real argument to be had whether the search was legal or not, since they attained a warrant and supposedly alerted her before their arrival, but the violent nature of the visit was definitely done to send a message. marching up to her house, kids and husband inside, with a troop of armed officers is definitely not necessary if all they wanted was her computer and to search her home. i have trauma just interacting with officers on routine traffic stops, can't imagine being a child and having a gun pointed at me, even worse, i can't imagine being a parent and feeling guilt for having put my family in that position. i'm not trying to make this political, but i don't want to be naive and say that these are the actions of a well-meaning group of people.

Indeed, that's why I mentioned other governments. Poison seems to be the Russian flavor.

Assange could go back to running WikiLeaks and would probably run it better now. What you need to run WikiLeaks is the trust of sources, and all of the attention that has been given to Assange can only help.

Snowden would also be able to repeat his acts, because you can pass clearance if you have no criminal record, and he's never been tried.

(The second one is a joke, the first is not.)

Why would any rational actor trust Assange now? He's shown himself to be a grand standing sociopath. It's also been made plain he's had and has an axe to grind against Western governments. He's a fellow traveller with Russian intelligence if not an unwitting asset (to be charitable).

Who would believe anything he has to say? Based on WikiLeaks' history under his direction no one could look at a WikiLeaks story and think they were getting any unvarnished truth. They could be sure they'd get posts disparaging or attacking Western governments...and that's about it.

>because you can pass clearance if you have no criminal record, and he's never been tried.

>(The second one is a joke, the first is not.)

Stranger things have happened although this would be pretty comical. Maybe the pendulum swings so much that we get a super progressive Millenial president and she makes Snowden head of NSA to clean up the agency. :)

The pendulum swings between right-authoritarian and centrist-authoritarian, so that's pretty unlikely.

Nonsense, FDR was only able to implement his transformative policies because the populace were on the verge of going after the elite in the country. They had to throw them some crumbs in the form of Social Security Act. This paved the way for Medicare and Medicaid. The country shifted to far leftist until the pendulum started to swing back to the right with the Civil Rights Act being the catalyst.

We are in similar circumstances in this decade where the nearly unrestricted capitalism of the Reagan era has clearly failed. What will be the breaking point that forces the pendulum back? I don't know. Maybe it will end up being the long tail of destruction in the post-COVID or era maybe something we haven't seen yet.

We will see a far leftist paradigm in this country in our lifetimes but it may end up being a time where many young people here will already be reaching older age. Oldest Millennials are 40+ now so many of them will never recover from the damage done already. Gen-Z may still have a chance. Hopefully Gen Alpha will not have to bear too much of the brunt of the current collapsing right wing paradigm and they can benefit from a Left leaning paradigm when they come of age in 20 years.

Assange specifically has not just "passed his impact peak", he's kind of fallen off the edge. The biggest enemy to Assange's cause seems to be Assange. The reason there's relatively little attention to him is because a lot of people have seen his cookieness, ranging from some rather ... curious ... opinions, to support for authoritarian regimes, to the the sexual assault, to the whole mess in the Ecuadorian embassy.

If he were taken out thought none of that would matter any more, and public opinion would very much be in favour of Assange. The backlash against the US would be huge, and rightfully so.

If I recall correctly the sexual assault thing ended up being entirely fabricated.

The cases eventually just expired, and with all hubhub I think the Swedish prosecution also just realized it was becoming a bit pointless. There are some people who claim it was all fabricated by secret U.S. agents or whatever, but that's little more than a conspiracy theory – the allegations were pretty credible, although obviously never proven in court. As with many things, it's not just the allegations that are damning, but also Assange's response to them, which was less than graceful, to put it mildly.

Yep so basically "it seems credible he did it" but it also "seems credible US agents fabricated it". So which do you think it is more likely?

At that point what’s the use speculating? You’re not going to get a conclusive answer.

> seems credible US agents fabricated it

This is not credible at all. Literally no evidence for it.

The more serious charges didn't expire, they were dropped.

"Dropped" only in the sense "there is no sense in pursuing them", not "dropped" in the sense "we don't think they have any merit".

Can you provide a citation for that?

I’m not sure why this is being downvoted, Assange certainly has burnt through a lot of good will with the kind of people that would have been his allies.

Remember when Trump said "I can shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any supporters"?

It's kind of like that for Assange.

This is unfortunate because it discredits the entire movement and some of the ideas Assange represents.

I don't think the risk is that high. It's a surprisingly high threshold to plan and kill another person if you aren't already used to it.

There is more than sufficient reason for madmen to kill every world leader, yet this happens extremely rarely.

World leaders have some level of police protection. Which also has a second order effect - if you're serious about an attack, you need to do some planning. And that planning often comes to the attention of the police.

Unless you're a machine

Sadly, if Assange does end up free the safest place for him will be somewhere like Russia, which will only further intensify the propaganda against him.

Agreed. See: Snowden

The difference there is that Snowden ended up in Russia unintentionally. There's a decent change he'd also be in custody now if he had made it to Ecuador though.

True, but it the resulting negative connotations are still in the minds of most of the population.

I'd love to see how he survives amidst the merchants of mistruth over there https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-disinformation-campaign...

Pot calling the kettle black doesn't make the pot less so, and is more than a little ironic.

Uh, how's that, exactly? (I mean, Assange DID basically get Trump elected based on his personal beef with the Clintons... sigh)

Though I think you're also unfairly blaming Assange for the Democrat's own failures, Assange's "personal beef" was not wanting someone who suggested he be drone striked to become president. I would also favor the person who hasn't called for my death.

> Possibly also at home in Australia.

Considering how much the government of Australia washed their hands of him, I don't expect Assange will ever call it "home" again (if he ever did).

In The Netherlands we have had our own "enemy of the state" Volkert van der Graaf. He killed upcoming right-of-center politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002, some feared he might pull it off to become our prime minister.

Plenty of death threats were written as comments to news articles and on forums. "We'll eventually get him", "If he ever gets out of prison I am out to get him". Etc.

Nothing has come of it so far ( he is out of prison for some years ).

Never underestimate the US crackpot population, we have cornered the market on nuts.

>Never underestimate the US crackpot population, we have cornered the market on nuts.

For the most part, it's hard to underestimate individual crackpots. Take them as a whole, and it's a different story however.

That said, Peter Medawar had it right[0]:

"The USA is so enormous, and so numerous are its schools, colleges and religious seminaries, many devoted to special religious beliefs ranging from the unorthodox to the dotty, that we can hardly wonder at its yielding a more bounteous harvest of gobbledygook than the rest of the world put together."

N.B.: I am an American.

[0] https://www.quotetab.com/quote/by-peter-medawar/the-usa-is-s...

We Americans always think that we're unique, and thinking that we're unique in having crackpots is yet one more manifestation of that.

> upcoming right-of-center politician Pim Fortuyn

Fortuyn was far-right.

"Fortuyn's beliefs began to shift to the right in the 1990s, especially related to the immigration policies of the Netherlands. Fortuyn criticised multiculturalism, immigration and Islam in the Netherlands. He called Islam "a backward culture", and was quoted as saying that if it were legally possible, he would close the borders for Muslim immigrants."

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

I tried to paint a short, coherent, neutral picture of the affair as not to derail the discussion. You are entitled to your opinions.

edit: also, the murder was silently condoned by a large fraction on the left.

> also, the murder was silently condoned by a large fraction on the left.

that sounds like the oppsoite of a neutral picture ...

Clinton wanted to drone him.

Clinton wanted to drone Pim Fortuyn?

>"the murder was silently condoned by a large fraction on the left"

Is that known for a fact?

Implying that someone 'silently condoned' something is very convenient because it's basically impossible to prove or disprove, it's like accusing someone of thoughcrime.

A certain fraction of Twitter regularly celebrates the death of American politicians they personally dislike, and the Netherlands is populated by the same species as America. The only truly debatable word in that claim is "large."

"The only truly debatable word in that claim is "large.""

The difference between 'this has popular support' and 'there are a few nutjobs' is kinda key, don't you think? Otherwise you might as well write 'a large section of leftists cut off their own penises"

If that was your goal then you utterly failed and this comment makes it worse. If you want to write something neutral it helps to first understand your own biases.

> I tried to paint a short, coherent, neutral picture of the affair as not to derail the discussion.

well you succeeded, here we are talking about your 'neutral' picture

> also, the murder was silently condoned by a large fraction on the left.

That is not my impression at all. If there's any sort of "silent condoning" going on then it's very very silent indeed, as I've never encountered it in spite of spending plenty of time in leftist circles. No doubt you can find a few crazy extremists, but they do not get to define "a large fraction on the left".

The point is that some innocent was killed. Discussion whether he was right or far-right seems a bit unnecessary given the context.

It is justification. The fact that some consider Pim Fortuyn far-right, makes the murder less bad. Understandable perhaps.

He was also openly gay and used women's rights as a big talking point. In the sense that the far right is a taint, he was tainted; in the sense that it's an entire set of political beliefs, he didn't fit neatly into that box.

This kind of black-and-white thinking also applies to Assange and WikiLeaks, and has had the unfortunate effect of removing his support from both the left (because of the Guccifer leaks) and the right (because of the Collateral Murder leaks).

> In the sense that the far right is a taint, he was tainted; in the sense that it's an entire set of political beliefs, he didn't fit neatly into that box.

> He was also openly gay

you can be gay and be far-right. those are not somehow mutually exclusive. another example off the top of my head: Milo Yiannopoulos and Dave Rubin are both openly gay and far-right.

> This kind of black-and-white thinking

no. the issue here is doublespeak and misdefining commonly used words. like on that wikipedia page i linked to his far-right views are laid out in detail, yet it also notes that he asserted that these far-right ideas are not far-right.

i mean, unless you're arguing that islamophobia and anti-immigration aren't right-wing?

I'm arguing that "right" and "left" are a linear one-dimensional approximation of complex multi-dimensional beliefs.

I don't associate the far right with drug legalisation, women's and LGBT rights, the right to die, or direct democracy. Pim Fortuyn supported all of these. He was also rabidly bigoted against Muslims, in a way that intersected with his support for other minority groups. Political positions are complicated and sometimes you need more than two words to describe them.

So if you are far-right, but only to brown people, you aren't far-right? This seems so obviously racist I can't believe you can argue for that position in good faith.

> So if you are far-right, but only to brown people

You can't be "far-right" to someone. It isn't a verb. And if someone only takes far right positions on the topic of brown people they aren't far right - they are something complicated that needs more description.

> You can't be "far-right" to someone. It isn't a verb.

i think you're willfully misinterpreting here to try to somehow discredit them or 'get' them, without actually offering any meaningful counterarguments. it's easy to understand what that person means.

> if someone only takes far right positions on the topic of brown people they aren't far right - they are something complicated that needs more description.

please would you elaborate? i haven't seen that before.

> please would you elaborate

To figure out what political philosophy we'd need to know about their other, non-far-right-wing, views.

By definition and context, their other views are either mild right wing, neutral or left wing. We'd need to have specific information to classify them. It is impossible with only one, context specific and relatively common, view.

> i think you're willfully misinterpreting here to try...

Given I'm literally correct, a safer assumption is that I'm the sort of person who cares about being literally correct? Far-right isn't a verb. And racism against brown people is an extremely common thing across the political spectrum; it isn't enough to characterise someone as far right.

In English literally any word can be a verb my dude.

It's fundamentally impossible to be both racist and not right wing so I'll just have to assume you're a troll.

> Pim Fortuyn supported all of these.

i doesn’t really matter if he supported those things individually. look at Reagan proclaiming he is fighting for everyone (including the black community), yet then behind closed doors he refers to black people as “monkeys” (that famous call with Nixon) [1]. so it doesn’t matter if Pim held those beliefs, it matters what policies the party overall pursues, with whom they ally themselves, and what actions come after their stated political aims/programs. when we take a look at similar political parties that came before it does not look good.

my point is: pursuing certain xenophobic ideas and pushing for far-right change nearly always ultimately means you end up forfeiting these ‘smaller’ standpoints when push comes to shove.

e.g. from Pim’s wikipedia page (under 'Political career') it is well-described how he had already journeyed from being a marxist to becoming a free-market neo-liberal. if he hadn’t been killed i’m sure he would’ve further completed this arc and becoming a far-right neo-conservative populist politician like the Trumps, Baudets and Wilders of today.

> I'm arguing that "right" and "left" are a linear one-dimensional approximation of complex multi-dimensional beliefs.

did you mean “aren’t” instead of “are”? i’ll assume so, because it seems to make the most sense to me from your other arguments (if not then i am not following you at all)

you are trying to redefine the right to left political spectrum to a ‘both sides’ centrist view. this is a dangerous right-wing strategy that aims to reframe a debate on it's own terms; a deflection and distraction away from important systemic critiques (which ultimately leads to a continuation of a systemically violent status quo).

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/ronald-rea... (archive version - https://archive.md/OdpeR), direct link to call audio https://soundcloud.com/user-154380542/nixon-013-008-630-650/...

Unless he advocates violence, criticising things and calling them "backwards" is not far-right, which is usually reserved for extremists.

Also here's the motivation for "islamophobia":

> "I have no desire to go through the emancipation of women and homosexuals all over again."

Do you think it would be private citizens or the government that would kill him in the US?

Honestly I think it’s too obvious for the government to kill him while he’s in the US and they’d be much more likely to do it overseas. Plus some rando crackpot probably couldn’t even recognize him on the street.

He could live a rich person’s life in Manhattan for years and barely be noticed once the initial media frenzy died down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com