Hacker News Reader

Comment by nikkwong | Hacker News Reader

Is anyone else here surprised that the reaction to him being free is so overwhelmingly positive? Assange certainly did great work to reveal government corruption and abuses of power. At the same time, some state secrets are best kept secret for national interests and Assange seemed to show a lack of regard for protecting this type of information. It often seemed that he was working in his own self interest rather than one that prioritized the interests of the US, humanity and civilization on the whole. I guess.. I just expected more nuanced discussion around this on HN.

View on HN

I don't think Assange operated in any kind of self-interest per-se, I think he operated based on a principle of maximum transparency.

I definitely don't think that is always a positive thing but I struggle to think of anything which Assange leaked which I really disagree with. Probably some parts of cablegate should not have come out as they were very "inside baseball" talk between diplomats and were too easily construed negatively in the media, though, I think for the most part our allies realized that they said the same things about us in their private communications and there was really no major fallout from it.

Now, all that said, Assange did break the law and I don't think there should be no consequences for that but the way the US went about this (across 3 different presidencies) is just terrible. Nudging and cajoling and perhaps berating our Swedish allies to jin up a "rape" case against him so he could be extradited from the UK to Sweden and then obviously to the US, and, denying that we were doing that was just dirty on our part. I'm sure if there is a cablegate 2.0 we'd find we did some fairly terrible stuff to persuade our Swedish allies to prosecute this.

Ultimately the simple reason I think there is near positive reaction to this news is that everyone understands that even given what he did, it does not merit almost 15 years of prison in some really terrible conditions. Should he have walked away free? Maybe, maybe not but he should have had a fair trial with fair charges and faced a fair jury and he never got any of that, he was effectively extrajudicially jailed.

> he should have had a fair trial with fair charges and faced a fair jury and he never got any of that

Could he have had that if he turned him self when he was originally charged?

He would never receive a "fair" trial in the United States.

He was accused of espionage, which is in itself incredibly alarming, given that he's a journalist. The law he's being charged under comes from WWI, which was a low point in the history of freedom of speech in the US, and that law is most likely unconstitutional. The law would not allow Assange to argue any sort of public interest defense. Probability of conviction would be near 100%. The US government conspired to assassinate Assange when he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, and many American officials, from the president on down, have denounced Assange, called him a terrorist, called for his execution, etc.

The United States is claiming the right to prosecute any journalist of any nationality anywhere in the world if they publish information that is classified in the US.

I mostly agree worth you, except to nuance that it is not about "information that is classified in the US", but about classified US-documents.

Well, maximum transparency on why he never published anything significant on Russia would be great.

To me it's a very bad smell when you pretend to fight for press freedom and democratic values, but never say anything bad about regimes where presidents-for-life are extinguishing the free press and poisoning opposition leaders.

It's like these all the crazy conspiracy theories that flourished online during the last decade, that are somehow never hurting Russian interests...

But I must be paranoid, right?

Well, would he still be alive if he’d published similar quantities of info on Russia? That’s a pretty simple explanation, he thought his chances of survival were better with Western leaks.

I think also you can’t really do reputational damage to an already well-known corrupt pariah state.

It depends, if you can convince people that it's the other way around, with counter-facts, embarrassing leaks and loud speakers... I'm sure you know the rhetoric, in which the US is the actual aggressor, supported by some big names, like Musk, Chomsky, Trump, and others, and then there are martyrs like Snowden and Assange.

> if you can convince people that it's the other way around

The US, the pariah state? In terms of geopolitics? In terms of economy? There's just no argument that could be made that that really is the case. What global players does Russia have any significant influence over? Who do they have substantial leverage over? A best some other pariah states. Now answer the same for the US. Not even in the same league.

> What global players does Russia have any significant influence over?

China, N. Korea, probably Vietnam, India'll listen to them, possibly more in s.e. Asia, and they're expanding their influence in Africa (by supplying mercenary armies).

They play the game differently than the US (at the very least: with other countries), but that does not make them a 2nd rate power.

> China [...] India'll listen

Russia is at the mercy of China. China can operate independently of them, same as India. They are trading partners, but it's a very asymmetrical relationship.

> N.Korea, probably Vietnam, [...] possibly more in s.e. Asia, and they're expanding their influence in Africa (by supplying mercenary armies).

As with all the countries they do have like some (though debatably not substantial) leverage over, they're in the global south, and most certainly not 1st rate powers.

> Russia is at the mercy of China.

Now, yes. Back when this happened, it was still closer to the other way around. (Well OK, China wasn't exactly "at the mercy" of Russia, but Russia was still generally regarded as the senior of the two. Perhaps mostly out of old habit.)

Basically the entire developed world has been in trade deficit with China for 2 decades now. The reality, which is slowly dawning on western countries, is that China has secured leverage – economically, financially, and in supply chains – worldwide. But this leverage all exists within the confines of globalization, and globalization is at odds with geopolitical discord, be they hot wars, cold wars, or simply the slow retreat to protectionism (and divestment to other rising powers like India) that US and some western allies are making. The world needs China, but China also needs the status quo to hum along.

check out John Mearshimer's recent content about the Ukraine / Russia conflict.

In my view: Putin is a patient, reasonable strategist who is trying to defend his country against significant aggression by US Neocons. US Neocons do not respect the maturity and sacrifice that led to the de-escalation of the cold war, and they want to incite conflict with Russia both out of ignorance of history and payments from Ukrainian oligarchs -- don't forget much of the wealth of the USSR was captured by a small number of oligarchs -- arguably including Putin -- and they don't all want Putin having all the power.

To be clear, the payments are not always direct, but across the US political spectrum there are many people who have set up shop as gatekeepers. Rudy Giulliani, Hunter Biden, and many many more are able to easily make millions a year doing the bidding of various eastern bloc billionaires. We are seeing the policy impact of their work at play in Ukraine now.

> defend his country against significant aggression by US Neocons

I'm skeptical of this argument, as a hot war or claiming of Russian territory is off the cards. Not just because of the nuclear deterrent, but because it's not really in the interests of any other country to engage in hot wars. Proxy wars between US and Russia have been a thing for a long time though. In reality, what is transpiring between Russia and the developed world is a battle for political influence, and they have, at least under their current right wing default, no interest in amenable relations with the west. And this is not because there isn't anything to be gained (particularly economically), but out of spite and injured national pride. A radical change of leadership would be great for the Russian people, its economic development, and also the border security of its neighbors.

Japan thrived post WWII because they accepted their position and made the best of the situation. And in spite of it's economic reputation, Japan is an excellent place to live, in terms of amenities. You pretty much have to be homeless on purpose. Though I think they are overworked (but much could be said of many Asian countries). Russia lost the cold war, through and through, but it still wants to live in the past, and drag everyone else down with it. The Russian leadership could just not start wars, and go back to economic development, and just in general have a less combative relationship with the rest of the world... but I'm not holding my breath.

US fighter jets flying formations around Lviv in 2016 was a clearly offensive move and was part of the strategy of trying to push the line further East and pressure Russia by removing Ukraine's neutrality.

The US will fight Russia this way till the last Ukrainian. It's a cynical policy and I feel badly for all of the people whose hearts are moved by the heroism of those in Ukraine fighting for their country. Alas the war was started by the US and the US does not care at all about Ukrainian suffering or Ukrainian lives. The whole project is just supposed to be a way for the US to harm Russia in a cost effective and politically feasible way.

> US fighter jets flying formations around Lviv

Still doesn't make an actual invasion more plausible in any real way. This is something that happens all the time. Jets from both sides fly near China and North Korea all the time. Again, their sovereignty remains and...

> was part of the strategy of trying to push the line further East

... their borders remain unchanged. As Russia (and the US) well knows, you can't change borders without sending the tanks in. And as the US has learnt the hard way, even then, it's probably not worth it.

US fighter jets flying formations around Lviv in 2016 was a clearly offensive move

Given that Ukraine was already quite openly invaded by Russia in 2014 -- these were, by definition, defensive moves.

> Rudy Giulliani, Hunter Biden, and many many more are able to easily make millions a year doing the bidding of various eastern bloc billionaires.

Yeah, I remember the big headlines about how Hunter Biden was going to build a huge luxury hotel in Moscow... Sheesh.

But hey, thanks for demonstrating how people who exhort others to listen to that asshole Mearshimer generally tend to come off as Putler trolls.

I hesitate to engage with your comment as it indicates a low level of openness to ideas. But I'll take a chance. Consider the following:

- Michael Flynn founded the Flynn Intel group in 2014 and was hired by Turkish interests, Russia Today, and is alleged to have worked on behalf of other Russian lobbyists.

- Rudy Giuliani founded Giuliani Partners and had clients in Ukraine, Qatar and Venezuela.

- The Clinton Foundation accepted numerous "donations" for alleged philanthropic work. Yet the donations dried up and the foundation dramatically shrunk after HRC lost in 2016.

- John Podesta founded the Podesta group which did lobbying work for Ukraine and Saudi Arabia

- Newt Gingrich has consulted for a variety of foreign entities.

- Bob Dole consulted for Taiwan

- John Bolton had a consulting firm that was hired by interests desiring Ukraine to join NATO

- Corey Lewandowski's firm sought foreign clients

- Paul Manafort did extensive consulting for Ukraine's pro-Russian political party

- Tony Podesta (John's brother) did extensive consulting for foreign governments

- Richard Gephardt has consulted for Turkish interests, among others.

- Jared Kushner had numerous foreign deals in play when he was a US official

FARA (the Foreign Agents Registration Act) was intended to promote transparency in these kinds of dealings. Of the people listed above, only Flynn, Manafort, the Podesta brothers and Dole registered under FARA.

The rest tread on the very large gray area of influence peddling. The thing to keep in mind is that all of the people involved in these kinds of schemes are easily bought for very little money when dealing with state-actor level budgets.

As you can see, the graft spreads across both parties and is generally concentrated a few degrees away from the ones holding current office. The Clinton Foundation was particularly ingenious and had the 2016 election gone differently would likely today be among the nation's most influential and financially successful NGOs.

"Low level of openness to ideas".

Oh, so _you_ have an open mind, I see. You must be a free thinker, free from propaganda and bias.

proceeds to parrot Putin talking points

Give us a break.

I am open to being shown errors in my thinking. So far you have used the tactic of name calling but haven't offered anything that indicates critical thinking. FWIW I have never heard Putin mention any of the points I've mentioned.

I'm not a fan of Putin but he is a superb strategist and a clear communicator who has sadly outwitted US leaders over the past decades, resulting in the US wasting a lot of money and keeping its eye off the ball strategically in other areas of the world.

In the same way that lobbyists are why soft drinks in the US contain harmful ingredients like corn syrup, lobbyists have led the US to spend a lot of money on pointless, strategically stupid wars that have weakened the US tremendously relative to its adversaries.

The talking points I'm mentioning is not this list of names, it's the good old "NATO agression/expansion", "Russia was threatened", "US forced Russia into war" bullshit.

So let's see, how was Russia threatened? Who on earth was going to invade Russia? They have enough nukes to destroy the planet. They were supposed to be the 2nd military power after the US. There already are 3 NATO countries right on the border with Russia, so if the invasion was about preventing NATO getting too close, it was a failure before it even started.

It's crazy the amount of mental gymnastic Putin apologists have to come up with.

So, if it's not about Russia being invaded, what else was so unacceptable with Ukraine not being barred from joining NATO?

Well, maybe, I know it's crazy, but bear with me, maybe, Putin had great plans for Ukraine and Russia, which would have fallen appart if Ukraine suddenly could not be invaded.

But that's too simple, right? It must be about US agression, CIA biolabs, nazi organ-trafficking pedophile satanists, combat pigeons, and Russia survival.

Seriously, what would have happened if Putin didn't invade Ukraine? Nothing. Russia would be fine. But Ukraine refused Putin's ultimatum to sign a treaty disallowing it to ever join NATO. Of course they refused. How could a sovereign country accept it? I mean, if you had a neighbor, already grabbing some of your garden, which insisted you agree to never get a bodyguard, would you accept it? Russia: WE DEMAND YOU STAY WEAK AND VULNERABLE TO AN INVASION. What a joke.

So of course Ukraine refused, even though it wasn't even in the process of joining NATO at the time. That provided Putin with an half-assed pretext to invade, so he did, and he made sure to lie about it, while the world was witnessing the amassing of 150K troops on Ukraine border. He lies. All the time, every time. That's who he is, that's what he does. He lies, we know he lies, he knows we know he lies, we know he knows we know he lies. But it doesn't matter, it's just the Russian mob way.

Anyway, you're also saying Putin is a 'superb' strategist? yeah, sure, but is he as superb as Hitler? If you admire Putin's strategy, you must be in awe when it comes to Hitler strategy, right? It's just too bad the guy is the worst war criminal of all times. Or maybe it's all Western lies too?

Now, the US is deep troubles internally. But it's not due to their wars. It's not about money. The Trump cult is just out of control. They are so close to become a full blown failed kleptocratic state it's mind blowing. If Trump gets back in the white house, it's basically over, he and his friends will literally loot the US, selling state secrets, selling the sabotage of the country. You must be deeply impressed by Trump as well, right? How can someone make the 1st world power self destruct like this, in just a decade?

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was supposed to be neutral. Within the United States post cold war, there has been a faction that has wanted to push NATO boundaries east and make Ukraine non-neutral. This is what happened.

Ending the cold war took a lot of discipline and sacrifice. It is hawkish neocons in the United States (the same people who architected the Iraq war, etc.) who have nudged the US toward aggression and have tried (successfully) to shift public opinion in Ukraine toward nationalism and favoring an anti-Russia non-neutral perspective.

Putin has been responding to the antagonism with bold and efficient use of force to advance Russia's national interest in the face of such aggression.

Putin has many, many problems (authoritarian, etc.) but he's not an idiot and the whole problem was caused by US neoconservatives who incidentally don't care if many Ukrainians die in the process of trying to weaken Russia.

As usual, the US propaganda machine paints Putin as irrational and insane, just as it painted Saddam and OBL. If anything, by now we ought to realize that when we hear US neocons saying that about someone that it's probably completely false.

It's very, very sad that the people of Ukraine have been victimized first by US propaganda and second by the US using them as human shields to avoid needing to spend dollars and lives sending US troops to fight more openly with Russia.

The extent to which the US has been weakened by following neoconservative warmongering impulses is staggering. First trillions of dollars flushed in the Iraq war. We emerge from the Iraq war with the defense industry tremendously enriched and with 100x the lobbying power it had beforehand. And now we find ourselves pushing Russia and China (and many other countries who will join) into an anti-US alliance that was completely preventable.

> Ukraine was supposed to be neutral

According to? It was supposed to be sovereign. It gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guaranties of never being attacked... Russia can't be trusted.

>there has been a faction that has wanted to push NATO boundaries east

Well, NATO membership works like this: Countries ask for membership. It's not "NATO" deciding "hmmm, let's expand east". You must be confusing with Russia expansion, forcibly annexing land, with all the war crime and deportation. Ex-soviet countries know what it's like to be occupied by Russia, so they want to be part of NATO. I'm sure you can see the difference.

> Putin has been responding to the antagonism with bold and efficient use of force to advance Russia's national interest in the face of such aggression.

Bold and efficient use of force??? Like, bold torture? Efficient killing and starving POWs? Smart kidnapping and re-education of Ukrainian children to draft them to fight against their own people? Yeah, what a genius. You're nauseating. You're talking just like a nazi would.

I think I'll stop there, I don't think it's worth discussing with people who casually admire war criminals.

> It was supposed to be sovereign. It gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guaranties of never being attacked... Russia can't be trusted.

The US was the first to violate the agreement, unfortunately.

> It's not "NATO" deciding "hmmm, let's expand east".

Lobbying groups from inside and outside those countries advocate for membership, etc. There are hawks in the US that don't care about Ukraine being neutral because they want to squeeze Russia.

> Bold and efficient use of force???

Putin has effectively used a much weaker military to thwart the US at every turn. He is a much, much smarter strategist (again, unfortunately). I am no admirer of Putin. Most recent US presidents most certainly qualify as war criminals, for what it's worth (unfortunately).

The sad part is that the US is encouraging Ukraininans to fight and die for a cause that the US has no intention of supporting in a significant way and has no intention of truly following through with. The US has been duplicitous with Ukraine and in spite of many US hawks wanting to go all in for Ukraine, it won't happen and they know it. The best they will do is donate weapons and let Ukraine harm Russia as much as possible while there are Ukrainians left to fight and while the conflict doesn't escalate to the point of endangering the US mainland.

Incidentally, it is quite likely that Putin will be nudged into attacking the US mainland at some point, either via cyber attacks that cost lives or actual munitions.

The US was the first to violate the agreement, unfortunately.

How, specifically? Facts only, please.

There are hawks in the US that don't care about Ukraine being neutral because they want to squeeze Russia.

That doesn't mean they are a dominant contingent or that this is a key driver of current policy.

Yeah, I know too well that rhetoric. That doesn't hold scrutiny unfortunately, and I think you know it, but it doesn't stop you from spreading it. You _sound_ wise, but you just assert things, like the "aggression by US Neocons", but you don't say what is the aggression. "Ignorance of history"? You don't say what history. You mention payments from Hunter Biden and Rudy Giulliani, but did you deduce this all by yourself, or do you have credible sources?

And then, I'm curious, what makes you think that Putin is a patient and reasonable strategist? What is patient and reasonable, exactly? Not only invading, but _annexing_ other nation's land? Throwing in jail for 7 years anyone who criticize the war? killing/poisoning your political opponents? Airing fake demonstrations of people demanding "we nuke Europe NOW"! Turning your country into a fascist military dictatorship, proudly putting assault rifles in the hand of children in kindergarten? Letting state-sponsored TV hosts say the most ridiculously fascist things like “Life is highly overrated”, "Ukrainians are not humans", "Ukrainian children should be drowned in the Tysyna", "We will kill 1 million, or 5 million; we can exterminate all of you". Pretend Ukraine is filled with nazi organ-trafficking satanist pedophiles? While you torture and starve POWs? Rewriting history? Pretending they fought the nazi since the beginning, while they invaded Poland hand-in-hand with the nazis, and were best friends until Hitler betrayed them. Only then they fought, for their survival, it was never a choice. Pretending they defeated the nazis alone, while the US helped them a lot with their logistics.

It's a sea of lies. You just have come up with big lies, repeat them again and again, and somehow it'll work. Textbook fascism, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie. And now, with open western social networks, it's super easy, super cheap. So, yeah, Putin is certainly not reasonable, he is just a "strategist", but he's just applying old fascist propaganda techniques, and let the useful idiots, bigots and opportunists do the rest.

What significant documents about Russia did you provide that Wikileaks refused to publish?

Rereading this, I should have added more context. Wikileaks can only publish what it's given, and there's no reason to suspect they receive much about Russia.

Imagine you're a Russian and you have information about the government that you want to leak. Would you give it to a primarily English speaking organization, with no Russian speakers on staff, that nobody in your community has ever heard of and has been alleged to have ties to Russian intelligence for years?

Or would you give it to a Russian speaking organization that has connections in Russia that could potentially help you if things get bad?

What evidence do you have of information about Russia which he refused to publish?

> Nudging and cajoling and perhaps berating our Swedish allies to jin up a "rape" case against him so he could be extradited from the UK to Sweden and then obviously to the US, and, denying that we were doing that was just dirty on our part.

Dunno if there was any "nudging and cajoling and berating", but from all I saw, those Swedish women (yes, plural) seemed to legitimately have a case. As I understood it, the case was dropped only because there seemed no chance to get him to Sweden to stand trial.

So whether he should have had no punishment at all, or sixteen consecutive lifetimes of hard labour, for spying, he's sure no saint -- and quite possibly deserved jail time -- in other ways.

My understanding of the case was that he consensually visited prostitutes in Sweden, which is legal, where he engaged in consensual sex with them.

Again, consensually, he did this without wearing a condom.

However, under Swedish law, that is rape and the charge is against the customer (not the provider).

So, yes, the women agreed on the facts of the case (Assange showed up and we had sex without a condom) but it was entirely consensual though illegal.

While I do have some understanding of why Sweden has a law like this (to encourage condom use) I don't think it fits anyones conventional definition of rape and under normal circumstances this would not be an offense that the Swedish government would be extraditing someone for (it's a nominal fine in most cases).

Please if I misunderstood something let me know, because, it has been years since I significantly researched this and it's one of the most politicized cases in memory.

> My understanding of the case was that he consensually visited prostitutes in Sweden, which is legal, where he engaged in consensual sex with them. Again, consensually, he did this without wearing a condom.

Prostitutes have nothing to do with it; of the two women who reported him at least one was a political activist who was, AFAICR, originally supposed to guide him around at the organisation(s?) where he was to be a guest speaker, but ended up hosting him in her home. (I got the impression she was, at least originally, pretty much a groupie of the romanticized image of him.) The other one may have been a friend or acquantiance of the first, or otherwise a "similar type". Far from prostitutes.

> However, under Swedish law, that is rape and the charge is against the customer (not the provider).

> So, yes, the women agreed on the facts of the case (Assange showed up and we had sex without a condom) but it was entirely consensual though illegal.

Been a while since I lived in Sweden, but I go back there every year and nobody I know has ever mentioned any such bizarre law. It would also most likely have been mentioned in news media in neighbouring countries, so I'd probably know about it even without going there, if it existed.

> While I do have some understanding of why Sweden has a law like this (to encourage condom use)

It doesn't. You have been utterly duped.

> Please if I misunderstood something let me know, because, it has been years since I significantly researched this and it's one of the most politicized cases in memory.

Getting stuff so utterly wrong, it's really rather hard to believe you ever "significantly researched" anything about this, because the picture you're painting has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth. (Well OK, sure, for all I know he may have also gone to prostitutes, but that has nothing to do with the rape allegations.)

Your "research" sounds as if it must have come directly from some kind of cross between an Assange fan site and Incel HQ. Just try the other Wiki in stead -- -Pedia, not -Leaks. They're usually at least somewhere close to the truth.

> Is anyone else here surprised that the reaction to him being free is so overwhelmingly positive?

Not really, though I am frustrated as it does feel like he's only popular because he's an underdog sticking it to The Man.

Even in isolation and ignoring the preceding case — for which he fled to the embassy in order to not risk the very outcome he's now facing (c.f. going to the USA, "Assange would appear in court in the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S.-controlled territory north of Guam", even though that wasn't even on the cards at the time he fled) — many other journalists manage to publish damning evidence that seriously upsets their governments without having to solicit for it (AFAICT, no journalists have gotten into trouble for publishing Snowden's leaks, just Snowden himself), while some other journalists who broke the law to get their scoops also faced court for breaking the law to get their scoops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_arrested_in_the...

There's a pretty big difference in breaking the law to get hot goss vs breaking the law to expose corruption at the highest levels of government.

There's limits of course, but whistleblowers should be afforded a lot of leeway, particularly because quite often doing things the "right way" is engineered to accomplish nothing.

Sure, but that protection (that doesn't fully exist in practice but should) would still go to Manning rather than Assange.

Assange is to Manning as Glenn Greenwald is to Snowden. (Except for all the differences which make the legal issues in this case a thing in the first place).

> without having to solicit for it

Countless journalists solicit classified information all the time. They don't just sit there hoping a story falls into their lap. They make connections in government and actively seek out information, including classified information. This has been completely standard in American journalism for decades.

> At the same time, some state secrets are best kept secret for national interests and Assange seemed to show a lack of regard for protecting this type of information.

Julian Assange was an irresponsible arsehole. Doesn't mean his treatment was anything resembling just. While he probably put a lot of people at risk, I've not heard of anyone actually getting hurt as a result of his actions. Given that, and given his treatment in prison, he's more than served his time.

Closest thing I've found in this thread to my own thoughts. I do think Assange was arrogant, personally dislikable, and had a particular grudge against the United States. This is different than my opinion of, for instance, Snowden, who seemed more motivated by a desire to trigger positive reform.

Regardless, Assange has been punished enough, particularly given the distasteful manner in which he was found guilty and imprisoned.

> At the same time, some state secrets are best kept secret

Yes, war crimes committed by USA and its allies are best kept secret and those committed by others are best exposed, right?

He’s not American and America are not “the good guys”. For any given secret, consider if you feel that USA should honor a request by Russia to keep it secret for the best of Russian interacts, if you don’t feel the same then its best exposed.

It’s redicules that so many Americans feel that war crimes committed by it and its allies should be kept secret because “we’re the good guys” then turn around and argue that the reason “we’re the good guys” is because we don’t commit war crimes, or when we do we at least have the decency to try to keep it secret because we know it’s bad, unlike the evil enemy who commit war crimes and try to cover it up!

But of course it is positive. This is a huge deal, even if only one that will benefit himself. I don’t know anything about any secrets that he showed any lack of regard for, but I definitely know about the files he exposed that showed the US government is a bunch of cowards who manipulate people and then use the full force of the law to defend themselves when caught with their pants down.

Instead of making people guess what you mean by nuanced, you simply should go ahead and provide that nuanced perspective and see if anyone wants to engage it.

The US government needs to prosecute actors who infiltrate secure systems with the aim to leak state secrets as a way to prevent this type of behavior from happening in the future. Say what you want; even if the premise of leaking is seeking to enrich the interests of the public--there are many state secrets that are secret for very good reasons, such as protecting the lives of informants, diplomats, etc.

There were many documents that WikiLeaks released that seemed to have been released under the auspice of "full transparency" but really served no public good and inflicted a lot of harm. Releasing the names of afgan informants, cablegate, that airstrike video where journalists were killed (can't remember the name specifically), etc. I just don't know if I agree that the public should know everything.

Think about the case of the NSA--yes they were spying on Americans in egregious ways and overextending the scope of their mission and authority. But at the same time, we do want a lot of their methods to remain secret. They have thwarted many potential terrorist attacks since 9/11; and if we, and our adversaries, knew exactly how and who they were spying on--I'm sure Americans would be less safe.

That information has been leaked and has the US been any less safe because of it. I would argue there is nothing to suggest it. Governments aren't above the law and the journalists that were killed and the spying was rightfully publicised. As was the Guantanamo Bay leaks. The public shouldn't know everything but if the public find out because the government act illegally and need to be held to law like anyone else, it is an unlucky consequence of the governments actions.

> They have thwarted many potential terrorist attacks since 9/11

Is there a source for this claim that isn't just the NSA saying "trust us"?

Yes. There was a 60 minutes episode that went into pretty deep detail on the different types of attacks that have been attempted since 9/11; most of which the NSA and/or the FBI were involved in thwarting. There was a very high profile train bombing that was would have been successfully executed if not for the power of some of these 3 letter agencies.

The same three letter agencies which routinely give fake bombs to heavily egged on idiots incapable of building them on their own?

The US used to only prosecute the government employees who leaked the information.

Charging journalists with espionage for publishing classified information is completely new in the US. Trump and Biden's prosecution of Assange is the first time it has ever happened. It's also almost certainly unconstitutional.

You blend interests of US, humanity and civ with ease perhaps out of nationalism. The first is in its own.

The right time for a nuanced discussion of the material published by Wikileaks was actually before the US/UK imprisoned this innocent-until-proven-guilty individual, not after putting him in soletary confinement for 5+ years. So no, not surprised. If there's need for a nuanced discussion, a course of action like this will never be the way to go about it. The time for a nuanced discussion has been over for more than ten years, and the argument was lost by the people who incarcerated him.

> At the same time, some state secrets are best kept secret for national interests

a) This applies to nuclear launch codes, not to the kind of things that Assange leaked even if leaking this is inconvenient or embarrassing for the nation.

b) Many of us aren't Americans and don't really care that much about US "national interests".

In a democratic society, laws should exist to protect state secrets.

Assange’s imprisonment was widely considered to be caused not by democratically formed laws, but by the whims of politics.

> In a democratic society, laws should exist to protect state secrets.

Should USA really pass a law to protect Russian state secret? No? Why should Australia or England pass laws to protect US state secrets?

We need more of his type of self-interest and less of the kind shown in the Panama Papers and Epstein flight logs.

Same. Assange was an actor for Russia, and acted against American interests, whether by design or by accident. He played a role in the election of Trump and in the weakening of US standing and intelligence.

This soft-handed approach towards anti-American behavior is the culmination of multiple movements in the post-Soviet era where the remnants of Soviet-sponsored communists and other home-grown agitators align themselves with anti-western groups around the world (Russia, Iran, China, various terrorist groups, etc). These groups have a lot of influence in the left in general, and in the current US administration, so it's not surprising that now is the time that Assange gets a friendly deal. Between this and Manning's sentence being commuted, I think a lot of damage has been done to our security apparatuses. What's the dissuade the next kid with delusions of toppling the corrupt American empire from exposing state secrets in a noble act on behalf of our comrades in the benign and honorable states of Russia, China, and Iran?

> These groups have a lot of influence in the left in general, and in the current US administration, so it's not surprising that now is the time that Assange gets a friendly deal.

You lost me there. Assange got a deal because the prosecution needed a deal to resolve the case. They didn't do it out of the kindness of their heart, nor because there was any pressure from the administration to do Assange a favor.

Try not being a corrupt empire for a change? Unthinkable I know, choosing to not be guilty of horrible crimes for a change! So long as they engage in fucked up shit and cover it up there will be reactions against it in one form or another. Whistleblowers are the most benign form, and themselves are the result of internal channels just being honeypots instead of policing themselves. If they truly cared for their precious opsec they would have robust internal investigations instead of retaliation.

Calling the US corrupt when the world looks like this is just not something I can take seriously: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

So funny, pro-western countries and their old colonies are all green. Looks like the founding members of TI felt a bit patriotic

I would hardly describe the deal as friendly. He already did 5 years in a prison that was worse than where he would have stayed in the US. Also, there was a bunch of legal uncertainty over the case given the 1st amendment concerns. The government would rather take a guaranteed conviction than potentially lose. Uncertainty is the same reason the government offers people a better plea deal after they get a mistrial or some evidentiary thing goes in their favor. Also, there are literally drug kingpins who sold thousands of tons of drugs and ordered executions with lower sentences than Manning. Her sentence was unfairly high to begin with, which is part of the reason it was commuted.

You seem to have the impression that leakers are getting sweetheart deals. In actuality you have people like Reality Winner who got five years for leaking information that was pretty much already public. Natalie Edwards getting six months for the FinCEN Files is probably a little low. I am incredibly skeptical that given the number of news organizations with access to the documents that they remained private and that no one was tipped off. But she was actually doing it in an effort to put pressure on Russia!

Yeah, sounds like overwhelming positive opinions...

JULIAN!! The guy that embarrassed evil powers all over the world!

What evil powers? Well, the US, the US, and... the US.

I got down-voted by just mentioning he didn't release anything significant on Russia for some reason.

I wouldn't be surprise if some of the massive support we're seeing here in this thread is not completely legit.

Let me ask a question to downvoters. Actually, wouldn't it be stupid for Russia not to have folks monitoring popular social sites, like HN, subtly (or not that subtly) pushing their views? Western sites are open to the whole internet, anyone can comment in here, it's easy, it's cheap. Why would they not do that?

There are people here exhorting others to listen to Putin-Versteher John Mearsheimer, so yes, that seems plausible.

> What evil powers? Well, the US, the US, and... the US.

How dare you Julian? No Russia or China is on the list? No! US can't be evil, only Russia/China can.

Notice how I didn’t say that the US can’t be evil.

US certainly can be, but, why stop there? Why not mention other evil powers while you’re at it?

Why focus on the US while Russia is going for textbook land grab à la Hitler?

Invading a country is very concerning, annexing it should considered unacceptable. Russia is doing the later.

> Notice how I didn’t say that the US can’t be evil.

Yes, you didn't, but the vibe of your message looks like whataboutism defense.

> Why focus on the US while Russia is going for textbook land grab à la Hitler?

Why focus on Russia while Israel is going for textbook land grab à la Hitler?

> Invading a country is very concerning, annexing it should considered unacceptable. Russia is doing the later.

Annexing a territory is very concerning, silently stealing the houses and land using settlers while killing civilians should considered unacceptable. Israel is doing the later.

I’m all for pointing out bad actors. You want to bring Israel to the party, fine.

But then, you should stay on topic. Did Assange publish any leaks on Israel?

Yes? That’s fair. No? Then we’re allowed to wonder why. But clearly you don’t care, it was just to throw whataboutism at me to show how biased I am.

> Yes, you didn't, but the vibe of your message looks like whataboutism defense.

No, it didn't. What you're apparently not getting is that Wikipedia's message -- and, by extension, your comment -- look like a defense-by-contrast of Russia and China.

> Wikipedia's message

Eh, yeah... WikiLeaks, duh.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com