Assange, Wikileaks and the Trump campaign

[vuk]

But, specifically, not a prisoner of Ecuador. Yet it's the Ecuadorian embassy who must put up with his behavior. If he hasn't been victimized by Ecuador, how is it excusable for him to be such a bad guest?

i don't know the details and, again, i view this as belonging to the arena of gossip -- an arena in which there are far more interesting stories, if one is into that.

 

[vuk]

great article in the intercept by glenn greenwald:

As the Obama DOJ Concluded, Prosecution of Julian Assange for Publishing Documents Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedom
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16...ocuments-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom

Over the last two years, journalists and others have melodramatically claimed that press freedoms were being assaulted by the Trump administration due to trivial acts such as the President spouting adolescent insults on Twitter at Chuck Todd and Wolf Blitzer or banning Jim Acosta from White House press conferences due to his refusal to stop preening for a few minutes so as to allow other journalists to ask questions. Meanwhile, actual and real threats to press freedoms that began with the Obama DOJ and have escalated with the Trump DOJ – such as aggressive attempts to unearth and prosecute sources – have gone largely ignored if not applauded.

 

[Hook]

The 1st Amendment bars criminal liability for publication of truthful material about any matter of public concern. This is true even if the person who provided that information to the publisher stole it and the publisher knew they stole it.

If that’s all the DOJ can prove, then Assange and Wikileaks have nothing to fear. If, however, the DOJ can show active participation (advance planning, or providing incentives - some form of quid pro quo) for the DNC hack, then it becomes a very different prosecution.

 

[vuk]

The 1st Amendment bars criminal liability for publication of truthful material about any matter of public concern. This is true even if the person who provided that information to the publisher stole it and the publisher knew they stole it.

If that’s all the DOJ can prove, then Assange and Wikileaks have nothing to fear. If, however, the DOJ can show active participation (advance planning, or providing incentives - some form of quid pro quo) for the DNC hack, then it becomes a very different prosecution.

if you read the greenwald article, you'll see that he addresses your last point and notes that part of the relationship between journalist and source typically involves this sort of cajollng for information. not saying assange did that, but thinking of the broader ramifications.

the moral problem here is that of state secrecy. protecting that i an way is a very dangerous and bad thing. we should actually be moving toward eliminating it altogether.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Whilst I couldn't give a toss about the fine details, the 100' high neon elephant IMO is that the video Assange released was photographic evidence of Murican forces committing the mass murder of civilians and children and there have been no comebacks that I know of.... Where are the trials for war crimes?

 

[Hook]

if you read the greenwald article, you'll see that he addresses your last point and notes that part of the relationship between journalist and source typically involves this sort of cajollng for information. not saying assange did that, but thinking of the broader ramifications.

the moral problem here is that of state secrecy. protecting that i an way is a very dangerous and bad thing. we should actually be moving toward eliminating it altogether.

I did read Greenwald’s article, and I will say again that there is a difference between “encouraging, cajoling, and persuading” and active participation in the theft. If, as Greenwald says, there is no evidence Assange committed a crime, then he has nothing to worry about. But how, beyond Assange's denials, would Greenwald actually know?

 

[vuk]

I did read Greenwald’s article, and I will say again that there is a difference between “encouraging, cajoling, and persuading” and active participation in the theft. If, as Greenwald says, there is no evidence Assange committed a crime, then he has nothing to worry about. But how, beyond Assange's denials, would Greenwald actually know?

OK, i agree there is a difference, but i really think this sort of judicial minutiae is a tiny, dsitracting sideshow in the totalitly of what has transpired. as @Arkless Electronics points out above, the war criminals exposed when all this started have faced no consequences. right of the start, that implies the total absence of a legitimate legal context in which such conversation made sense.

 

[Hook]

Vuk - you are resorting to whataboutism, but I’ll play along for a bit.

When WikiLeaks published the video of the 2007 killing of the two Reuters reporters and the Iraqi civilians, I was shocked and saddened. I was also disappointed when the military decided that, because some were armed, the killings fell within the so-called “rules of engagement”. I agree that the soldiers involved should have prosecuted in a military court. But this has nothing to do with this thread, which is supposed to about Wikileaks role in helping the 2016 Trump campaign by publishing emails stolen from the DNC.

You may consider the hacking of the DNC to be insignificant, but I disagree. It was a politically motivated crime, plain and simple. The only thing left to prove is whether or not Assange and WikiLeaks were accomplices.

 

[Tony L]

You may consider the hacking of the DNC to be insignificant, but I disagree. It was a politically motivated crime, plain and simple. The only thing left to prove is whether or not Assange and WikiLeaks were accomplices.

...and whether Assange is anything beyond the spineless coward he appears and will show the basic conviction and integrity to stand by his actions in a court of law.

PS I suspect we know the answer to that, our favourite internet warrior/troll will still be found cowering in someone else’s bedroom...

 

[vuk]

Vuk - you are resorting to whataboutism, but I’ll play along for a bit.

your are now enaging in insult, but i may play along a little later when i have a bit of time.

 

[Hook]

your are now enaging in insult, but i may play along a little later when i have a bit of time.

I don’t see how, but if you found my post insulting, then I of course apologize. That was not, and never is, my intent. I simply could not figure out why you thought the 11 1/2 year old atrocities of the Iraq War applied to a thread entitled “Assange, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign”.

Reply or not, that’s up to you.

 

[vuk]

@Hook i find accusations of "whataboutism" highly offensive. it is the new "whatever". i understand that the thread has a suggested theme, but i was just using it as a place to write about assange news in general -- just like the trump thread is sort all-purpose american politics to some extent.

when discussing this matter in any way, we have to look at the entire context to make a proper judgment. you can't just skip over assange's essentially illegal detainment, vilification and harassment by the USA-UK-EU axis. how about we smear you, put you under house arrest in a tiny flat which you can not leave for a decade and see then see what we can dig up to charge you with as people like tony yell "coward" at you from the sidelines (the behaviour brings to mind those people who go to gay funerals to shout abusive things).

so, in the grand scheme of justice, until we resolve the antecedent issues, this is like watching a football player stomp on an opponent's leg, causing a career-ending injury which the referee incorrectly sees as just a routine foul and then spending all our time weighing the validity of a red card shown to the victim because he said "f*ck" whilst writhing in agony.

 

[Tony L]

so, in the grand scheme of justice, until we resolve the antecedent issues, this is like watching a football player stomp on an opponent's leg, causing a career-ending injury which the referee incorrectly sees as just a routine foul and then spending all our time weighing the validity of a red card shown to the victim because he said "f*ck" whilst writhing in agony.

Utter BS. The man is a coward, nothing more, nothing less. Well, ok, he might also be a rapist. Political prisoner my arse! Manning, Snowden etc are the only heroes in this picture, certainly not Assange who hasn’t done anything but run away or hide from things for years.

 

[DonQuixote99]

Temper everyone. Affection and hatred for Assange are equally unpersuasive.

On whataboutery. Vux seems to be getting to the crimes of the US justify the 'crimes' of Assange, whatever they may be. Classic revolutionary morality, in other words. The enemy regime is too evil, and anything one can do to it or it's minions is justified. The deaths of people associated with US operations, in this frame, may be seen as a positive good, even in the case of non-violent people acting in good faith.

You might have explained this yourself, Vux, instead of getting all huffy, and throwing out the apparently much worse insult of equating a fellow poster with raging anti-gay bigots.

Whether the US is so bad as that is another question. We also may ponder whether a revolutionary morality reaction can in the long run bring about some net increase in goodness.

 

[vuk]

On whataboutery. Vuk seems to be getting to the crimes of the US justify the 'crimes' of Assange, whatever they may be.

i am not saying that at all. i am suggesting that the actions of the US government (led on in this case by the secret service and military) need to be seriously questioned. in the first place, any judicial validity of the persecutors is seriously undermined by their total failure to act on the crimes of their own people. the fact that assange, who exposed these crimes to begin with, is now made out to be the criminal is blatant deflection.

as for the "speculators" here, what wikileaks has exposed is there for us all to see. the allegations against him, we know little about nor do we have much evidence for. i am open to the fact that he may have broken some laws, but let's wait to see what this is all about. in the meantime, we should be protesting that he is still being illegally detained (as the UN has ruled).

 

[Tony L]

Assange is not detained. He is free to leave at any time. He may be arrested and charged if he does leave, but that is the same as anyone else who is accused of breaking the law. These are simple facts. I am amazed anyone would struggle with them.

The aspect I find so bewildering is that given his media presence why he shows such extraordinary cowardice. The eyes of the world would be on him at every step, he would have access to the very best lawyers in the world and would almost certainly win any case relating to simply publishing/whistle-blowing data sent to him. I realise he is far more duplicitous and dubious a character than this, e.g. his dealings with Russia, the alt-right etc, his using his influence in the US elections, Brexit etc, but again I’m not convinced there is actual criminality there. Given his actions almost certainly put Trump in the Whitehouse I’d have thought now was the time to face up to things! He’d likely get a presidential pardon if found guilty! There is no way someone of his media profile would get whisked away to Guantanamo or wherever, so why is he such a chickenshit? Anyone with integrity would face it out.

 

[martin clark]

+1 to that @Tony L
And, lest we not forget, he chose his present avoidance strategy 6yrs ago. What the heck lay really behind what he expressly feared then (extradition to the US via other means) - some other influence that only may now be becoming manifest via other news?

 

[vuk]

Assange is not detained.

there is no point discussing this if you won't accept basic premises and lead off with something that is not true.

U.N. panel upholds decision on Julian Assange's arbitrary detainment
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/30/un-panel-upholds-decision-julian-assanges-detainme/

as for cowardice -- would you feel brave enough to go up against american intelligence and military? i am thinking about the wikileaks publishing itself. i actually don't think i would have had the bravery to publish the leaks in the first place.

we need to bend over backwards to protect whistler blowers, especially in our age of mass surveillance, secrecy and terrorist scare-mongering.

 

[vuk]

And, lest we not forget, he chose his present avoidance strategy 6yrs ago.

given that the whole case that led to the problems was dropped, you could say he was very wise to be afraid of some sort of trap. so he chose to avoid danger, possibly torture. what is your point exactly?

What the heck lay really behind what he expressly feared

so now lets conjure something up.

both of you are being remarkably authoritarian here, siding with state power over the dissent of someone who has acted in the interest of the masses (whatever his motives are).

 

[martin clark]

I think I'd turn that last line on its head, Vuk.

Other than his own unsubstantiated proclamations, there's very little evidence other than JA might claim he has worked in the interests of the masses, then or now, at all. Don't forget, this was transparently the case even before he chose to hole-up in an embassy (of a last-choice Nation but one, at the time, happy to poke the US in any way it could, following on the back of Venezuala's then-belligerent rhetoric - i.e before Chavez' demise) I strongly suspect Ecuador's response would be very different anytime in the last 4-5yrs, given a new request even on a blank slate.

Assange has only ever operated to his own agenda for his own advantage; long before he ran for cover he was viewed as a slippery eel. He could have fronted-up, challenged or left for elsewhere in his own time. This is a quandary he entirely owns: of his own making, and also why - from the perspective here - he gets very little sympathy.


(and personally I have an utter, political-spectrum-indifferent loathing of Authoritarianism, and logical fallacies based on of argument from authority, thanks)