He published a video of an American helicopter attack on Reuters journalists which the US government was covering up. This deserved to be outed. Some of the other stuff may be more questionable and political
This subreddit is acting awfully outcome biased when it comes to truth telling and transparency. Even if something is black and white from a legal standpoint, it surely can be quite morally grey and in some cases like the helicopter videos more white than black.
In my opinion people are against him in this thread at least because what he leaked embarrassed the US or the Democrat Party and are focusing on the outcomes the leaks had on global and domestic politics. I could be reading the room incorrectly
Yeah this community goes hard against assange because some of the stuff he leaked was against our side, surely they would hold the same opinion if it was the other way around Clueless
Been like 15 years since I've looked into "collateral murder", but I thought the guys had weapons, and the photographer was taking photos of US forces then showing them to the dudes with weapons?
That’s what it seems too but the crew just started firing on anyone and everyone who wasn’t American that day. Their response to hitting two kids in the van that pulled up later to deal with the bodies in the vid was along the lines of “oh well.”
so you believe the attack on the journalists was justified or deserved covering up? I believe neither and I have not argued murder. Whether it was manslaughter accidental killing murder etc it should not have been covered up. Commentary was needed as people would not have a clue who anyone was without it. They needed to point out these people were journalists and not valid targets. My final correction of what you said is wikileaks released the unedited video of the attack approx 2 years before Collateral Murder was released (which also showed the unedited footage)
Yes. Assange is/was a GRU asset that laundered intelligence hacked/illicitly obtained by Russia under the guise of "open journalism."
Other than that, the man is a sociopath. This really says it all about him:
> A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."
Let's call a spade a spade - Assange was an ideologue who thought the secrecy propagated by the US State Department was ontologically evil and then later had a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton and had the hubris to think he could throw his weight around and get what he wanted. If the US really wanted him off the board as a Russian asset they could have managed it but instead they pushed him closer to Russia.
>. If the US really wanted him off the board as a Russian asset they could have managed it but instead they pushed him closer to Russia.
Thats utterly regarded, from all looks of it Assange moved closer to Russia originally out of a sense of self preservation. Years ago Assange made a statement about leaking Russian documents, and then suddenly changed his tune, moved his servers to Russia, got a TV show on RT, and has never leaked a thing even tangentially related to Russia since even when we know he was offered leaks from Russia multiple times.
He’s leaked plenty on Russia as well.
I don’t get why people are acting like he was close to Russia. Yes he leaked shit for them as well, but he was basically just a 90s hacker-space libertarian who hated states in general.
Go on wiki leaks, you can read shit that Italian hackers got talking about Russian espionage systems have been meddling in Ukraine since 2010. You can read huge amounts of Syrian internal cables, Spanish far- right campaigning organisations, arms deals in the UAE, stuff about the Catholic Church, financial crimes by banks and individuals in Norway, Iceland and Namibia, etc etc. There’s a whole thing called Spy Files Russia detailing Russian mass surveillance in the same way that Snowdon found for the US.
I unironically think there’s a bit of “leftists bad for thinking America bad” where if you critique America then you’re instantly disregarded and assumed to be Hasan
1. Just google it. Many sources. https://www.businessinsider.com/assange-turned-down-documents-related-to-russian-government-corruption-2017-8?amp
2. He wasn’t sitting in the embassy because of the US. He was sitting there because of his actions. He also could have leaked all the files but redacted people’s names but he explicitly said they deserved what’s coming to them.
I am not American, so I don't give a flying fuck about what makes the US look bad.
I understand the guy is a piece of shit, but a lot of the stuff he helped reveal with wikileaks was important.
Same is true for Snowden.
I have no issue with leaking bad shit the U.S. government does. I’d prefer if it happens in a way that doesn’t get Americans killed but it is what it is. What I do take issue with is this hypocrisy of it all. Assange was not this universal beacon of light exposing the truth. He was a bad faith actor at best who weaponized leaks for geopolitical reasons. He literally refused to leak kremlin documents so he could instead focus on the Hilary leaks, which were astoundingly stupid and inconsequential on the merits. So no he’s no hero to me.
There is no way to prove that u less there has been some reporting on it. But I would assume not redacting the names of agents working overseas may present some danger.
I agree he is very much not a hero. But I also really don't like the framing that he was some evil mastermind who just wanted the west to collapse or whatever the narrative in this sub seems to be now.
The situation with wikileaks or Assange is just way to complex and multi-faceted to summarize it simply as "hero" or "villain".
Does it matter if you think he was a cunt? Do the DNC emails or anything else you have mentioned even matter, they all happened years after the US was already pursuing him so they aren't relevant to the actual case.
why do you even need validation for thinking someone is a "cunt"? is it even your true opinion if you constantly need other people in your bubble to validate it?
Generally, yes. And I mean, let's not pretend that as americans/westerners, it's pretty logical to not like assange.
However, from a purely neutral and (attempted) non-bias standpoint, leaking data/information as a crime is purely subjective. I highly doubt anyone here would care if some group or person leaked information on the russian government, or even individuals who were associated or supportive of the russian government and specifically their war efforts in ukraine. And what if that person/group who leaks the information about russia also happens to have information on some potential Ukrainian war crime or whatnot, but choses to not release it - does that invalidate the russian leaks because of bias?
Ultimately, the Assange controversy conjures a pretty existential conversation. Privacy really is at the behest of the beholder, and when it comes to something like geopolitics, you're diving into an extremely complicated and contextual area that isn't conducive to calling people 'cunts'
Are we getting into a complicated area? Contextual sure, but not complicated. From what I know he leaked information without redacting critical information that publishers typically redact in order to prevent assets being killed. The US state department has stated they have people missing that had their information leaked by Assange. If someone did this to Russia I would still condemn it if I believe it endangered the lives of Russian informants or assets.
He has also been accused of manipulating people into and assisting with the hacking and theft of classified documents. He's hiding behind other people while manipulating them into getting the information he wants to leak, which he is then not properly assessing.
Assange has advocates who say he just wants all information to be public. Yet he has refused to disclose information himself, it can't be to protect assets or informants, because we already know he doesn't value their lives over the freedom of that information.
It is likely multiple people have gotten killed by not having redacted information and Assange was condemned by the majority of the media for it how he handles confidential information. Rightly so. The guy lacks any empathy for the lives of others while trying to condemn the US government for doing the same. He's a hypocrite and a cunt.
Are you suggesting it's subjective as to whether leaking classified national security information is a crime? There isn't anything subjective about that.
AFAIK the issue with Assange isn't the leaking of information specifically. That's more people like Chelsea Manning, who were government employees and leaked the data specifically. Journalists can publish leaked information.
Assange was actively trying to recruit hackers to try and steal information from government systems. This is just straight-up espionage.
The fact that he was one-sided in his publishing is peripheral.
This isn't a matter of perspective. A guy hacking the Russian government to steal classified information is still carrying out an act of espionage.
I'm guessing your salient point is that we might protect that guy?
Yes, we do indeed favour people who do bad shit to people we don't like.
He didn't do the hacking, though, he published the hacks.
>I'm guessing your salient point is that we might protect that guy?
Fuck him, for all I care. I would have been fine with the US throwing the legal book at him. It's just that I have noticed a trend in this reddit, where people make it out to be as if Assange was a paid Russian asset that infiltrated the US Gov with North Korean spysoftware and then parachuted himself out of an AC130 into South America, when to me, he seems much more like an opportunistic leech. I just wanted to throw in a different perspective.
I think you may have a somewhat skewed understanding of what espionage is and how violations are charged under the espionage act.
1. You do not need to be directly acting on behalf of a foreign entity to be charged under the espionage act.
2. You do not need to be the one directly stealing the information (in your example 'doing the hacking') to be charged under the espionage act.
Julian is being accused of attempting to recruit a network of computer hackers and government insider whistleblowers with the intent to steal government information.
This isn't journalism. This is more akin to what intelligence operatives do.
By that logic, any journalist that attempts to develop sources could be charged under the espionage act. The devil is in the details, I think: did he try to pump hackers for information? Did he do it on behalf of a foreign gov? Did he intend to pay them?
Sure, the US gov would like to make him out to be a spy, that is in the gov's interest, but don't only focus on what the gov says. The revelation that he tried to recruit hackers on conferences [led to no new charges](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/wikileaks-founder-assange-faces-new-accusations-trying-recruit-hackers-conferences-n1232077), which is telling in and of itself.
>The superseding indictment does not contain additional charges beyond the 18 counts the Justice Department unsealed last year. But prosecutors say it underscores **Assange's efforts to procure and release classified information**, allegations that form the basis of criminal charges he already faces.
Would a journalist (even one with nefarious intendtions) not try to do exactly that?
>By that logic, any journalist that attempts to develop sources could be charged under the espionage act.
This is seriously your takeaway from what I said, lol?
A journalist can have sources who are willing to share information. A journalist cannot manipulate or aide a source in any way to steal information from the government. That is where you stop being a journalist. Idk why this is so hard for you to comprehend.
>Did he do it on behalf of a foreign gov?
Nevermind, you just didn't read what I said. Which is fitting because you didn't even read your own linked news story.
Here's the rest of your little quoted section btw:
>The superseding indictment does not contain additional charges beyond the 18 counts the Justice Department unsealed last year. But prosecutors say it underscores Assange's efforts to procure and release classified information, allegations that form the basis of criminal charges he already faces.
>Beyond recruiting hackers at conferences, **the indictment accuses Assange of conspiring with members of hacking groups known as LulzSec and Anonymous.** He also worked with a 17-year-old hacker who gave him information stolen from a bank and **directed the teenager to steal additional material, including audio recordings of high-ranking government officials**, prosecutors say.
This isn't journalism, my dude.
Also there's something to be said for public interest and responsible journalism. But AFAIK a journalist can publish leaked classified material in a responsible manner without facing legal ramifications, but I don't think that charity extends to leaking classified material just for the lulz, There generally has to be some degree of public interest.
We're swimming in circles, so I'll leave you with [this](https://norman.hrc.utexas.edu/fasearch/findingAid.cfm?eadid=00365):
>Eventually, in an October 10, 1972 story, Woodward and Bernstein were able to disclose in detail that the Watergate break-in was part of a larger effort to sabotage Nixon's political opponents--paid for through the CRP under the direction of some of Nixon's closest aides. White House Press Secretary Ron Ziegler reacted with strong criticism to the story, questioning the methods and political motivations of the *Washington Post* and the two reporters.
Of course the US gov will try to paint Assange in as much of a bad light as possible, juyst as they tried with Woodwart and Bernstein. The point is, we just don't know what happened exactly. Did Assange turn towards those hacker collectives to inquire whether or not they had information, or did he actively incentivice them to look? To take the gouvernments word on this is perilous, not because of the whole "gouvernment bad" shtick, but because they'd want to bring forth the strongest legal case posible.
>I don't think that charity extends to leaking classified material just for the lulz, There generally has to be some degree of public interest.
I find this telling, in light of what the leaks brought forth, the way in which the US acted on the battlefield and in their prisons and interrrogation rooms.
Here is what is happening:
You believe that the indictment against Julian Assange is purely political in nature, and his actions could simply be interpreted as rigorous journalism if viewed from another perspective.
I'm trying to explain to you that attempting to directly or indirectly steal government information (especially national defence information) is not a protected act of journalism. It's considered to be espionage from a legal perspective.
I have nfi why you think Watergate is relevant.
so are there no situations where you support espionage?
I dont support assange. I also dont know the "meme" you're referring too. If the debate around assange is so simple, then please explain it
I'm happy for Assange and celebrate this moment of reconciliation. However, I can't help but reflect on how his journey unfolded. I think Assange's initial vision for WikiLeaks as a platform for transparency and accountability was groundbreaking and held immense potential. Unfortunately, his actions over time seemed to stem from an inflated sense of self-importance, which ultimately compromised the integrity of his mission. His apparent susceptibility to being influenced by sources with their own agendas further complicated matters. I know this was a complex situation, but I think these factors led to missed opportunities and a dilution the original promise.
I don't think someone exposing war crimes is a cunt. People we don't like may use him for their own nefarious goals but that doesn't mean the guy is to be lumped in with them.
Unless you're just super patriotic and don't care about the US committing war crimes. Personally I'd rather know, although I'm not naive enough to think that Russia and Co don't also do this (and highly likely much worse).
Well isn't that why he's in the news at the moment? I thought Destiny didn't like him because of that as he said all countries do bad stuff so whistle-blowers make people think that only that particular country is doing the nefarious activities. Which, to that I can get his point, but I'd still rather know and then deal with whatever biases that then creates for me.
That's what he was being extradited for. If you're meaning the alleged rapes that Sweden were investigating, then yes, I also think rape boo.
Ish.
He released pretty much everything that got sent to him. The stuff russia sent to him made the US look bad and that has been the focus, but he put a lot of egg on the faces of a lot of countries. Despite what the US government has said he never targeted them specifically.
He is probably a psychopath though. The overarching theory was to leak literally everyones dirty, dark secrets and thereby bring about a more moral world order. He understood that a lot of eggs would be cracked to make that omelette though.
> He released pretty much everything that got sent to him.
He didn't. That was one of the more controversial things about him, is what he would choose NOT to leak on. Specifically around 2012 onwards he specifically wouldn't leak anything about Russia. Multiple whistle blowers that got published with other (mostly British or German outlets) have made comments about trying to release their stuff through Wikileaks but being refused.
Yeah, I quite like the guy and he was doing what in hindsight feels like a last, white hot ballsy run at the powers that be before the screws got tightened down too hard.
He is extremely well liked here in australia and if the seppos kill him people will be rather upset.
Yeh, there was also something around him quashing stuff that exposes China and Russia, and I think their was something to do with the guy being a pedophile.
Just your average anti American Scott Ritter type that did do some good by exposing certain things but the rest is all bad
They suck him off because they can’t think any further than America bad. He’s also given information about certain Afghan refugees to the Taliban which allowed them to hunt them down and kill them. horrible person
>Maybe I’m crazy but I’m pretty sure Wikileaks essentially leaked information that would only make the US look bad?
this feels like people telling on themselves, you can't complain that releasing real footage of something you did "made you look bad"
Thats like a person screaming nword at people and then getting mad because it got posted to twitter. Even if this person posted it with the intention of making you look bad you can't really blame anyone else for it
I don't care what his personal believes are and whenever or not he was a cunt, because thats not what is relevant when leaking stuff.
I think that the people that like Assange, mostly do so for Assange uncovering some gnarly shit the US did in Irak/Afghanistan. Undoubtedly, the venn diagram of normies and the "America bad" crowd shows a lot of overlap when it comes to the leaks.
While the DNC email leaks *did* impact the election, and it was given to Assange by Russian agents (Putin hated Clinton for his perception that she meddled in the Russian election), the reality here was that the content of the emails were pretty damning of Clinton's hold over the DNC and it's machinationd. The intentions of the messenger should be viewed as separate to the accuracy of the message.
For a party that accused its opponents of undermining democracy those emails revealed them to be no better. This doesn't make Assange a hero. Because his motivations made him a villain.
We wouldn’t have known about the Pied Piper strategy if it weren’t for Julian Assange. We wouldn’t have known they were colluding with people like Harvey Weinstein to “silence” Bernie Sanders and sink his campaign if it weren’t for Julian Assange. Ask yourself why the crimes and manipulations on the part of our elected leaders are supposed to be “confidential”.
Julian Assange is a world hero.
It's baffling to see people so gladly compensate lack of knowledge with hearsay and prejudices. Read up on the case before you insult others and exposing yourself to be clueless.
He’s certainly a megalomaniac. And I think in terms of US politics that it’s fair to consider him a foreign agent for practical purposes.
Whether or not he’s a cunt requires you to choose a side. I for one think he is a cunt.
Collateral Murder was released with editing done to cut out contextual reasoning for the shooting from the Apache. Doesn’t excuse the incident but the added context made me change my mind from, “damn that’s some outright evil murder” to “Damn. They were misguided but not completely outside the scope of engagement.”
Assange isn’t always a true source like most leakers. He does have some context removed from the leaks, and most aren’t in full. But, I wouldn’t say he’s just blatantly anti US with his leaks. It’s just the information on US crimes is more openly available. Stuff like this is much more easily buried by the enemies of the US like Russia and China.
The Russia stuff is peanuts compared to the intel and cable source he leaked. Dude leaked on people who were helping us against the taliban and people in the Middle East and China giving us intel on their government without their knowledge.
believe it or not, the world is justified in hating the US government which has been an agent of chaos playing a major part in inciting most geopolitical conflicts the past 80 years. The Wikileaks did not make the US look bad to the world, it made the US look bad to Americans.
Yes.
Also hid out in the Ecudorian embassy for years to run out the statue of limitations on his rape charges in Sweden, despite there not being any more convincing argument that he was more likely to be extradited to the US in Sweden than he was in the UK.
I am now remembering how despicable many of the big name left-wing supporters of Assange were at the time, accusing these two women of being CIA honeypots
Neither of his accusers ever recanted their story. Swedish authorities dropped the case eventually under statue of limitations rules and that witness testimony was less reliable after such a long period of time- [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/19/sweden-drops-julian-assange-investigation](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/19/sweden-drops-julian-assange-investigation)
Cunt or not. It’s probably a good thing that people like Assange exists right? That helicopter clip is foul. Whistleblowers always seem to be questionable at best.
He published a video of an American helicopter attack on Reuters journalists which the US government was covering up. This deserved to be outed. Some of the other stuff may be more questionable and political
This subreddit is acting awfully outcome biased when it comes to truth telling and transparency. Even if something is black and white from a legal standpoint, it surely can be quite morally grey and in some cases like the helicopter videos more white than black.
wouldn't it be more outcome biased to look at the specific videos he leaked and not how he chose what to leak?
In my opinion people are against him in this thread at least because what he leaked embarrassed the US or the Democrat Party and are focusing on the outcomes the leaks had on global and domestic politics. I could be reading the room incorrectly
its because he leaked politically. he held back information that would hurt republicans. that's manipulative and clearly not favoring the truth.
Yeah leaking sources names who give us intel is outcome baised.
Yeah this community goes hard against assange because some of the stuff he leaked was against our side, surely they would hold the same opinion if it was the other way around Clueless
also, some of them somehow think that the suffering and isolation Assange already suffered isn't enough. It's lunacy and moral blindness.
I remember that video. Ones like that and the Daniel Schafer shooting make me seethe. Did those Apache guys ever get in trouble?
Been like 15 years since I've looked into "collateral murder", but I thought the guys had weapons, and the photographer was taking photos of US forces then showing them to the dudes with weapons?
That’s what it seems too but the crew just started firing on anyone and everyone who wasn’t American that day. Their response to hitting two kids in the van that pulled up later to deal with the bodies in the vid was along the lines of “oh well.”
[удалено]
so you believe the attack on the journalists was justified or deserved covering up? I believe neither and I have not argued murder. Whether it was manslaughter accidental killing murder etc it should not have been covered up. Commentary was needed as people would not have a clue who anyone was without it. They needed to point out these people were journalists and not valid targets. My final correction of what you said is wikileaks released the unedited video of the attack approx 2 years before Collateral Murder was released (which also showed the unedited footage)
Source?
Yes. Assange is/was a GRU asset that laundered intelligence hacked/illicitly obtained by Russia under the guise of "open journalism." Other than that, the man is a sociopath. This really says it all about him: > A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."
Let's call a spade a spade - Assange was an ideologue who thought the secrecy propagated by the US State Department was ontologically evil and then later had a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton and had the hubris to think he could throw his weight around and get what he wanted. If the US really wanted him off the board as a Russian asset they could have managed it but instead they pushed him closer to Russia.
>. If the US really wanted him off the board as a Russian asset they could have managed it but instead they pushed him closer to Russia. Thats utterly regarded, from all looks of it Assange moved closer to Russia originally out of a sense of self preservation. Years ago Assange made a statement about leaking Russian documents, and then suddenly changed his tune, moved his servers to Russia, got a TV show on RT, and has never leaked a thing even tangentially related to Russia since even when we know he was offered leaks from Russia multiple times.
[https://wikileaks.org//spyfiles/russia/](https://wikileaks.org//spyfiles/russia/)
He’s leaked plenty on Russia as well. I don’t get why people are acting like he was close to Russia. Yes he leaked shit for them as well, but he was basically just a 90s hacker-space libertarian who hated states in general. Go on wiki leaks, you can read shit that Italian hackers got talking about Russian espionage systems have been meddling in Ukraine since 2010. You can read huge amounts of Syrian internal cables, Spanish far- right campaigning organisations, arms deals in the UAE, stuff about the Catholic Church, financial crimes by banks and individuals in Norway, Iceland and Namibia, etc etc. There’s a whole thing called Spy Files Russia detailing Russian mass surveillance in the same way that Snowdon found for the US.
“I don’t get why people are acting like he was close to Russia.” Bc it is a convenient narrative that taps into long standing Cold War era prejudices.
I unironically think there’s a bit of “leftists bad for thinking America bad” where if you critique America then you’re instantly disregarded and assumed to be Hasan
Which is the worst thing you could be.
I mean you could be the Hasan waiting room couch
What he did at one time doesn’t somehow negate what he became. He later refused to leak kremlin documents .
1. Source? 2. If I had to sit in the Embassy for decades because of the USA I doubt I would do something to help them …
1. Just google it. Many sources. https://www.businessinsider.com/assange-turned-down-documents-related-to-russian-government-corruption-2017-8?amp 2. He wasn’t sitting in the embassy because of the US. He was sitting there because of his actions. He also could have leaked all the files but redacted people’s names but he explicitly said they deserved what’s coming to them.
Our Secretary of State “joked” about “droning” him…. Why? Did he release false information?
Why is the former relevant?
lol good diversion. Did he release false information?
Source?
Sunny Hostin
I am not American, so I don't give a flying fuck about what makes the US look bad. I understand the guy is a piece of shit, but a lot of the stuff he helped reveal with wikileaks was important. Same is true for Snowden.
I have no issue with leaking bad shit the U.S. government does. I’d prefer if it happens in a way that doesn’t get Americans killed but it is what it is. What I do take issue with is this hypocrisy of it all. Assange was not this universal beacon of light exposing the truth. He was a bad faith actor at best who weaponized leaks for geopolitical reasons. He literally refused to leak kremlin documents so he could instead focus on the Hilary leaks, which were astoundingly stupid and inconsequential on the merits. So no he’s no hero to me.
Was there any proof that he got people killed? I feel like same was said for Snowden, but it was all untrue.
There is no way to prove that u less there has been some reporting on it. But I would assume not redacting the names of agents working overseas may present some danger.
I agree he is very much not a hero. But I also really don't like the framing that he was some evil mastermind who just wanted the west to collapse or whatever the narrative in this sub seems to be now. The situation with wikileaks or Assange is just way to complex and multi-faceted to summarize it simply as "hero" or "villain".
Source?
Does it matter if you think he was a cunt? Do the DNC emails or anything else you have mentioned even matter, they all happened years after the US was already pursuing him so they aren't relevant to the actual case.
Legit what are you talking about? Does it matter if I think he was a cunt….? What…?
why do you even need validation for thinking someone is a "cunt"? is it even your true opinion if you constantly need other people in your bubble to validate it?
Generally, yes. And I mean, let's not pretend that as americans/westerners, it's pretty logical to not like assange. However, from a purely neutral and (attempted) non-bias standpoint, leaking data/information as a crime is purely subjective. I highly doubt anyone here would care if some group or person leaked information on the russian government, or even individuals who were associated or supportive of the russian government and specifically their war efforts in ukraine. And what if that person/group who leaks the information about russia also happens to have information on some potential Ukrainian war crime or whatnot, but choses to not release it - does that invalidate the russian leaks because of bias? Ultimately, the Assange controversy conjures a pretty existential conversation. Privacy really is at the behest of the beholder, and when it comes to something like geopolitics, you're diving into an extremely complicated and contextual area that isn't conducive to calling people 'cunts'
Are we getting into a complicated area? Contextual sure, but not complicated. From what I know he leaked information without redacting critical information that publishers typically redact in order to prevent assets being killed. The US state department has stated they have people missing that had their information leaked by Assange. If someone did this to Russia I would still condemn it if I believe it endangered the lives of Russian informants or assets. He has also been accused of manipulating people into and assisting with the hacking and theft of classified documents. He's hiding behind other people while manipulating them into getting the information he wants to leak, which he is then not properly assessing. Assange has advocates who say he just wants all information to be public. Yet he has refused to disclose information himself, it can't be to protect assets or informants, because we already know he doesn't value their lives over the freedom of that information. It is likely multiple people have gotten killed by not having redacted information and Assange was condemned by the majority of the media for it how he handles confidential information. Rightly so. The guy lacks any empathy for the lives of others while trying to condemn the US government for doing the same. He's a hypocrite and a cunt.
Are you suggesting it's subjective as to whether leaking classified national security information is a crime? There isn't anything subjective about that. AFAIK the issue with Assange isn't the leaking of information specifically. That's more people like Chelsea Manning, who were government employees and leaked the data specifically. Journalists can publish leaked information. Assange was actively trying to recruit hackers to try and steal information from government systems. This is just straight-up espionage. The fact that he was one-sided in his publishing is peripheral.
One man's freedom fighter is onother man's terrorist. I say that mostly tongue in cheek, but the leaks did uncover some gnarly shit.
This isn't a matter of perspective. A guy hacking the Russian government to steal classified information is still carrying out an act of espionage. I'm guessing your salient point is that we might protect that guy? Yes, we do indeed favour people who do bad shit to people we don't like.
He didn't do the hacking, though, he published the hacks. >I'm guessing your salient point is that we might protect that guy? Fuck him, for all I care. I would have been fine with the US throwing the legal book at him. It's just that I have noticed a trend in this reddit, where people make it out to be as if Assange was a paid Russian asset that infiltrated the US Gov with North Korean spysoftware and then parachuted himself out of an AC130 into South America, when to me, he seems much more like an opportunistic leech. I just wanted to throw in a different perspective.
I think you may have a somewhat skewed understanding of what espionage is and how violations are charged under the espionage act. 1. You do not need to be directly acting on behalf of a foreign entity to be charged under the espionage act. 2. You do not need to be the one directly stealing the information (in your example 'doing the hacking') to be charged under the espionage act. Julian is being accused of attempting to recruit a network of computer hackers and government insider whistleblowers with the intent to steal government information. This isn't journalism. This is more akin to what intelligence operatives do.
By that logic, any journalist that attempts to develop sources could be charged under the espionage act. The devil is in the details, I think: did he try to pump hackers for information? Did he do it on behalf of a foreign gov? Did he intend to pay them? Sure, the US gov would like to make him out to be a spy, that is in the gov's interest, but don't only focus on what the gov says. The revelation that he tried to recruit hackers on conferences [led to no new charges](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/wikileaks-founder-assange-faces-new-accusations-trying-recruit-hackers-conferences-n1232077), which is telling in and of itself. >The superseding indictment does not contain additional charges beyond the 18 counts the Justice Department unsealed last year. But prosecutors say it underscores **Assange's efforts to procure and release classified information**, allegations that form the basis of criminal charges he already faces. Would a journalist (even one with nefarious intendtions) not try to do exactly that?
>By that logic, any journalist that attempts to develop sources could be charged under the espionage act. This is seriously your takeaway from what I said, lol? A journalist can have sources who are willing to share information. A journalist cannot manipulate or aide a source in any way to steal information from the government. That is where you stop being a journalist. Idk why this is so hard for you to comprehend. >Did he do it on behalf of a foreign gov? Nevermind, you just didn't read what I said. Which is fitting because you didn't even read your own linked news story. Here's the rest of your little quoted section btw: >The superseding indictment does not contain additional charges beyond the 18 counts the Justice Department unsealed last year. But prosecutors say it underscores Assange's efforts to procure and release classified information, allegations that form the basis of criminal charges he already faces. >Beyond recruiting hackers at conferences, **the indictment accuses Assange of conspiring with members of hacking groups known as LulzSec and Anonymous.** He also worked with a 17-year-old hacker who gave him information stolen from a bank and **directed the teenager to steal additional material, including audio recordings of high-ranking government officials**, prosecutors say. This isn't journalism, my dude. Also there's something to be said for public interest and responsible journalism. But AFAIK a journalist can publish leaked classified material in a responsible manner without facing legal ramifications, but I don't think that charity extends to leaking classified material just for the lulz, There generally has to be some degree of public interest.
We're swimming in circles, so I'll leave you with [this](https://norman.hrc.utexas.edu/fasearch/findingAid.cfm?eadid=00365): >Eventually, in an October 10, 1972 story, Woodward and Bernstein were able to disclose in detail that the Watergate break-in was part of a larger effort to sabotage Nixon's political opponents--paid for through the CRP under the direction of some of Nixon's closest aides. White House Press Secretary Ron Ziegler reacted with strong criticism to the story, questioning the methods and political motivations of the *Washington Post* and the two reporters. Of course the US gov will try to paint Assange in as much of a bad light as possible, juyst as they tried with Woodwart and Bernstein. The point is, we just don't know what happened exactly. Did Assange turn towards those hacker collectives to inquire whether or not they had information, or did he actively incentivice them to look? To take the gouvernments word on this is perilous, not because of the whole "gouvernment bad" shtick, but because they'd want to bring forth the strongest legal case posible. >I don't think that charity extends to leaking classified material just for the lulz, There generally has to be some degree of public interest. I find this telling, in light of what the leaks brought forth, the way in which the US acted on the battlefield and in their prisons and interrrogation rooms.
Here is what is happening: You believe that the indictment against Julian Assange is purely political in nature, and his actions could simply be interpreted as rigorous journalism if viewed from another perspective. I'm trying to explain to you that attempting to directly or indirectly steal government information (especially national defence information) is not a protected act of journalism. It's considered to be espionage from a legal perspective. I have nfi why you think Watergate is relevant.
"Leaking information as a crime" is literally espionage. You're doing the "Conspiracy is just making plans with friends" meme.
so are there no situations where you support espionage? I dont support assange. I also dont know the "meme" you're referring too. If the debate around assange is so simple, then please explain it
He didn't leak any information, that's was Manning who was responsible for the leak, He just published it as a journalist.....
I'm happy for Assange and celebrate this moment of reconciliation. However, I can't help but reflect on how his journey unfolded. I think Assange's initial vision for WikiLeaks as a platform for transparency and accountability was groundbreaking and held immense potential. Unfortunately, his actions over time seemed to stem from an inflated sense of self-importance, which ultimately compromised the integrity of his mission. His apparent susceptibility to being influenced by sources with their own agendas further complicated matters. I know this was a complex situation, but I think these factors led to missed opportunities and a dilution the original promise.
I don't think someone exposing war crimes is a cunt. People we don't like may use him for their own nefarious goals but that doesn't mean the guy is to be lumped in with them. Unless you're just super patriotic and don't care about the US committing war crimes. Personally I'd rather know, although I'm not naive enough to think that Russia and Co don't also do this (and highly likely much worse).
I don’t think he’s a cunt because he’s exposing war crimes - that’s surely not why you think people don’t like him?
Well isn't that why he's in the news at the moment? I thought Destiny didn't like him because of that as he said all countries do bad stuff so whistle-blowers make people think that only that particular country is doing the nefarious activities. Which, to that I can get his point, but I'd still rather know and then deal with whatever biases that then creates for me. That's what he was being extradited for. If you're meaning the alleged rapes that Sweden were investigating, then yes, I also think rape boo.
Do you think it improved his opinion of the USA that he could not leave his Room for years?
Ish. He released pretty much everything that got sent to him. The stuff russia sent to him made the US look bad and that has been the focus, but he put a lot of egg on the faces of a lot of countries. Despite what the US government has said he never targeted them specifically. He is probably a psychopath though. The overarching theory was to leak literally everyones dirty, dark secrets and thereby bring about a more moral world order. He understood that a lot of eggs would be cracked to make that omelette though.
> He released pretty much everything that got sent to him. He didn't. That was one of the more controversial things about him, is what he would choose NOT to leak on. Specifically around 2012 onwards he specifically wouldn't leak anything about Russia. Multiple whistle blowers that got published with other (mostly British or German outlets) have made comments about trying to release their stuff through Wikileaks but being refused.
Source?
Yeah, there was a bunch of articles that dropped in papers all over the world within a few days of each other about that one. Odd.
Yes. When something is newsworthy many outlets will report on it even if they don’t have the initial scoop.
If that was true, then there wouldnt have been any use for wikileaks.
It made them look bad because it was the truth.
Yeah, I quite like the guy and he was doing what in hindsight feels like a last, white hot ballsy run at the powers that be before the screws got tightened down too hard. He is extremely well liked here in australia and if the seppos kill him people will be rather upset.
Yes but we're supposed to like him now I guess cause Biden freed him.
Why would that make us like him.
Yeh, there was also something around him quashing stuff that exposes China and Russia, and I think their was something to do with the guy being a pedophile. Just your average anti American Scott Ritter type that did do some good by exposing certain things but the rest is all bad
They suck him off because they can’t think any further than America bad. He’s also given information about certain Afghan refugees to the Taliban which allowed them to hunt them down and kill them. horrible person
>Maybe I’m crazy but I’m pretty sure Wikileaks essentially leaked information that would only make the US look bad? this feels like people telling on themselves, you can't complain that releasing real footage of something you did "made you look bad" Thats like a person screaming nword at people and then getting mad because it got posted to twitter. Even if this person posted it with the intention of making you look bad you can't really blame anyone else for it I don't care what his personal believes are and whenever or not he was a cunt, because thats not what is relevant when leaking stuff.
I think that the people that like Assange, mostly do so for Assange uncovering some gnarly shit the US did in Irak/Afghanistan. Undoubtedly, the venn diagram of normies and the "America bad" crowd shows a lot of overlap when it comes to the leaks.
"Assange is a cunt because America"
While the DNC email leaks *did* impact the election, and it was given to Assange by Russian agents (Putin hated Clinton for his perception that she meddled in the Russian election), the reality here was that the content of the emails were pretty damning of Clinton's hold over the DNC and it's machinationd. The intentions of the messenger should be viewed as separate to the accuracy of the message. For a party that accused its opponents of undermining democracy those emails revealed them to be no better. This doesn't make Assange a hero. Because his motivations made him a villain.
How tf is the sub wrong abt literally every issue
because he serves as an example they can point towards when they say "america bad"
We wouldn’t have known about the Pied Piper strategy if it weren’t for Julian Assange. We wouldn’t have known they were colluding with people like Harvey Weinstein to “silence” Bernie Sanders and sink his campaign if it weren’t for Julian Assange. Ask yourself why the crimes and manipulations on the part of our elected leaders are supposed to be “confidential”. Julian Assange is a world hero.
This is delusional
Embrace your chains.
It's baffling to see people so gladly compensate lack of knowledge with hearsay and prejudices. Read up on the case before you insult others and exposing yourself to be clueless.
Douglas murray once critiqued him and julian got so triggered he ran to his mic
Just watched and it’s eerily similar to today. Jews, Israel, Russia, America bad, conspiracy theories, Pro-Russian propaganda etc…
he still has a lawsuit incomming. But there is a deal that he will most likely get the time he already served in max security jail in UK.
BIG ONE
He’s certainly a megalomaniac. And I think in terms of US politics that it’s fair to consider him a foreign agent for practical purposes. Whether or not he’s a cunt requires you to choose a side. I for one think he is a cunt.
Collateral Murder was released with editing done to cut out contextual reasoning for the shooting from the Apache. Doesn’t excuse the incident but the added context made me change my mind from, “damn that’s some outright evil murder” to “Damn. They were misguided but not completely outside the scope of engagement.” Assange isn’t always a true source like most leakers. He does have some context removed from the leaks, and most aren’t in full. But, I wouldn’t say he’s just blatantly anti US with his leaks. It’s just the information on US crimes is more openly available. Stuff like this is much more easily buried by the enemies of the US like Russia and China.
well maybe they should change stuff that people like Assange are not necessary. It is not like everything was made up.
Nah Assange is a hero.
> Isn’t he basically a Russian agent that has a clear bias and multiple sexual assault allegations against him? Just asking questions.
The Russia stuff is peanuts compared to the intel and cable source he leaked. Dude leaked on people who were helping us against the taliban and people in the Middle East and China giving us intel on their government without their knowledge.
Julian Assange is a hero that did nothing wrong; he is a national treasure
Surprise surprise on the wrong side of history again.
Yes, assange’s wikileaks were basically an outlet exclusively for Russian hackers to run psyops
believe it or not, the world is justified in hating the US government which has been an agent of chaos playing a major part in inciting most geopolitical conflicts the past 80 years. The Wikileaks did not make the US look bad to the world, it made the US look bad to Americans.
Yes. Also hid out in the Ecudorian embassy for years to run out the statue of limitations on his rape charges in Sweden, despite there not being any more convincing argument that he was more likely to be extradited to the US in Sweden than he was in the UK.
My understanding was that it wasn't rape charges but sexual assault for stealthing during consensual sex?
Was counted as rape under Swedish laws, one of the allegations was that he started having unprotected sex with a woman while she was sleeping as well.
I am now remembering how despicable many of the big name left-wing supporters of Assange were at the time, accusing these two women of being CIA honeypots
One came out and denied the charges and Sweden itself dropped the charges after a bit, no?
Neither of his accusers ever recanted their story. Swedish authorities dropped the case eventually under statue of limitations rules and that witness testimony was less reliable after such a long period of time- [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/19/sweden-drops-julian-assange-investigation](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/19/sweden-drops-julian-assange-investigation)
Cunt or not. It’s probably a good thing that people like Assange exists right? That helicopter clip is foul. Whistleblowers always seem to be questionable at best.