[HN Gopher] Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indict... ___________________________________________________________________ Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment Author : eplanit Score : 314 points Date : 2021-06-26 15:22 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (stundin.is) (TXT) w3m dump (stundin.is) | Synaesthesia wrote: | Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has ever | had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public about | governments, which is why they're targeted. In fact several | Pulitzer Prizes have been awarded thanks to their efforts. | They've never been shown to put anyone at risk either, a | testament to their careful vetting process, showing that they're | responsible too. | | This is clearly a political attack on someone who has exposed | some uncomfortable truths. Even if Assange is a criminal, which I | don't think he is, there's no excuse for holding him in the | manner which they are, treating him worse than the worst | criminals. | | Finally it's been shown that the rape accusations were an | orchestrated smear campaign as well. | GoofballJones wrote: | Important to note that Wikileaks wouldn't publish a retraction | anyway, even if they were totally wrong. | | Come on... | breakfastduck wrote: | Source? Do you have a relevant example? | ratsmack wrote: | That's a very bold statement when history has shown | otherwise. Don't you believe the powers that be would jump at | the chance to discredit them? I would be so lucky if the | generally corrupt mainstream media should be more like them. | dagmx wrote: | That's a fairly charitable take on WikiLeaks. They host the | entirety of the Sony leak on their site that caused me and | hundreds of my colleagues to face a increased lifetime risk of | fraud and stolen identity. | anonymousiam wrote: | Hacked by North Korea and made easy by poor security on | Sony's part. It sucks when personal information is stolen and | published, but that genie is out of the bottle and cannot be | put back. | gamblor956 wrote: | Both the leak of the DNC files, and the purported leak of files | by a Putin critic, were found to contain numerous forged | documents. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05 | /26/russi...) | | In a heinous followup, Assange claimed that a murdered DNC | staffer was the party responsible for the DNC leak...based on | no evidence except Assange's bro-love for Donald Trump. | (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics- | news/wikileak...) | | But sure, let's pretend that nothing Wikileaks has posted has | ever been shown to be fake or falsified, or that Assange | himself has never lied. | boomboomsubban wrote: | >Both the leak of the DNC files, and the purported leak of | files by a Putin critic, were found to contain numerous | forged documents. | | Nothing in that article shows any evidence of tainted leaks | in the DNC release. It claims some other leak had some | tainted links, that they were carried out by the sane group, | and that the Clinton team claimed emails were fake. | | Wikileaks Twitter account has been full of madness, almost as | if it was being run by someone suffering years of torture. | That's a separate claim from the validity of the site. | DiogenesKynikos wrote: | The Forbes article you link to does not say that the DNC | files contained forgeries. Assange also never said that Seth | Rich was responsible for the leak. He was asked about it in | an interview and gave an evasive/vague answer. | joshuamorton wrote: | > They've never been shown to put anyone at risk | | This is false. They've denied putting people at risk, but | there's decent evidence that their leaks have directly shared | pii and harmed large numbers of random unimportant people. | capableweb wrote: | Could you share this decent evidence for us who haven't seen | it before? | billyhoffman wrote: | Wikileaks posted diplomatic cables without redacting the | names or other forms of PII. Actual journalists from the | New York Times, Der Speigel, Le Monde, The Guardian, and El | Pais all signed a statement saying this was a gross breach | of people's privacy and potentially put these people in | danger. | | https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/leade | r... | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_ca | b... | Dah00n wrote: | You quote The Guardian, who published the decryption key? | That's an interesting choice of source. | stefan_ wrote: | You mean after an "actual journalist" put the password | for the cache of all unredacted cables that "actual | journalists" received in his book? | DiogenesKynikos wrote: | To this day, The Guardian refuses to admit that it | released the unredacted cables to the public, and blames | WikiLeaks for the release. One of The Guardian's own | journalists used the decryption key as a chapter title in | his book about WikiLeaks. The Guardian's excuse is that | they thought the decryption key was temporary. I don't | know if people at The Guardian really are that | misinformed about how encryption works, or if they're | just being deceitful. | C19is20 wrote: | sauce? | anonymousiam wrote: | Given the publicity around the "poison pill" "insurance" | archive, it's difficult to believe that anybody could not | understand the severity of leaking that password. | | Although not required or authorized to do so, Wikileaks | tried to limit the exposure of sources who would be at | risk if their identities were exposed. The unredacted | information exposed many sources and put lives at risk. | The USG blames Wikileaks for this because they released | the encrypted archive. I have never heard of an | investigation or prosecution into the circumstances of | the password release, but if Wikileaks is responsible, | then David Leigh should be as well. | | https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist- | negligently.html | macinjosh wrote: | Lol @ "actual journalists" | | You do know there is no such thing as journalistic | licensing or certification, right? They went to college. | They have nothing above anyone else who break news | because they are employed by a corporate outlet. That | makes me trust them less actually. | bitL wrote: | Panama papers were released with names by the same | newspapers. | jude- wrote: | This is the reason why I don't feel too bad for Julian | Assange, and why I don't refer to him as a "journalist." | Not redacting PII is such a rookie mistake that I can't | see it as anything other than journalistic malpractice. | iNane9000 wrote: | Well you can't claim he is not a journalist and also | accuse him of journalistic malpractice. It's one or the | other. | Dah00n wrote: | You don't feel bad for him because you have misunderstood | what actually happened? Wikileaks had an encrypted file | but it was a Guardian journalist that published the key | to decrypt it. What you are suggesting is that Wikileaks | _should censor the source files before journalists got | them_. That is not how proof works. Redacted files isn 't | proof but tampered evidence. The fault is 100% on the | person that leaked the decryption key. Blaming Julian | Assange for this leak is jumping to conclusions. | joshuamorton wrote: | The two I'm aware of are | https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-reportedly- | outs-100s-... and | https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks- | he..., which published the names of afghan informants to | the us military, and the names, phone numbers, and | addresses of half of the Turkish population, respectively. | | The first clearly endangered people, the second contained | basically nothing of reporting use, it was just a trove of | pii | Brakenshire wrote: | "Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has | ever had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public | about governments" | | That isn't true for their social media: | | https://micahflee.com/2019/01/lies-that-wikileaks-tells-you/ | juanani wrote: | This abuse of power won't end well. | Medicineguy wrote: | While scrolling, the web page shifts up a couple dozens of pixels | (Android, Firefox) . It's very annoying. I had to stop reading | after the second paragraph. | | Am I the only one? | n8ta wrote: | You are not the only one. Site is rough. | EvRev wrote: | It is a bug when you use VH instead of VW on your height | attribute. Always use VW on mobile because of the default | behavior on mobile browsers to show the address bar when | scrolling. | ComputerGuru wrote: | But that breaks a lot of design assumptions, since many times | the use of vh vs vw is to avoid assuming which of the height | or width is greater. You'd have to use a min/max calculation | to avoid aspect ratio mayhem whn comparing landscape to | portrait. | | The real big is UI elements that randomly appear and | disappear in the browser chrome, such as scroll bars and | address bars, that contribute to vh/vw randomly spazzing. | yownie wrote: | Local Icelander here, this kid has been known to be a real | scumbag to most people here for years with much coverage of his | sociopathic tendencies. | | https://grapevine.is/?s=siggi+hacker | gamblor956 wrote: | Stundin is a tabloid. Let's wait until this report is confirmed | by more reputable sources before declaring Assange innocent. | denton-scratch wrote: | Never heard of Stundin before, but it reads like a pretty well | done report. | 2939223 wrote: | Nothing more jarring than the harrowing treatment of Assange by | the US, contrasted with their subsequent lecturing and | sanctioning of Belarus re Roman Protasevich, or Russia re | Navalny. | | Zero integrity. | lbwtaylor wrote: | Has the US tried to extra judicially murder Assange? | belorn wrote: | Do the US need to extra judicially murder Assange in order to | make an example of him? | | I can imagine what would happen if Russia tried the same | tactic as the US and used diplomatic channels in order to | successfully influence the legal systems in countries like | the UK and Sweden. | lbwtaylor wrote: | Are you proud of what Assange actually did in Sweden? | Taking off a condom mid sex or lying about wearing one? | | It's called stealthing and very much a terrible thing to | do. | Dah00n wrote: | You just lost the discussion. | 2939223 wrote: | Yes: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/30/us- | intelligenc... | lbwtaylor wrote: | I know HN loves Assange but comparing an unsubstantiated | stamenent that US persons talked about extreme measures, vs | actual poisoning is pretty weak. | threeseed wrote: | That's an unproven allegation. Navalny was actually | poisoned. | ComputerGuru wrote: | These were claims made in court, during formal hearings. | They weren't disputed, and as such, they are part of the | official court record and are worth more than random | hearsay. | | The US' repsponse (as quoted) was that these allegations | were "wholly irrelevant." That doesn't sound like a | denunciation or denial to me. | threeseed wrote: | Anybody can make claims in court and the US government is | hardly going to confirm or deny poisoning someone. | | It's an unproven allegation and a world away from Navalny | who was actually poisoned. | kcatskcolbdi wrote: | Why would the US government not deny poisoning someone? | [deleted] | fscksnowden wrote: | If Greenwald suggest to Snowden in Dec 2012 that he should steal | more, is comrade Greenwald complicit | | We all know Assange not only encouraged but participated. | | Snowden is a thief and liar who encouraged others to leak in his | capacity at fpf. Complicit. | | Snowden and Assange are traitors, in the non legal definition | rbanffy wrote: | Assange is not even a US citizen. How can he be a traitor? | fscksnowden wrote: | fair enough, he runs a so called "hostile intel svc" | Synaesthesia wrote: | For what, reporting the truth to the US public? That's | called journalism and ought to be praised. | fscksnowden wrote: | Opinion split, many think he's an arch criminal. | Certainly hasn't made US diplomacy any easier. | | I'd gander that Assange, Snowden and Trump are the main | reasons why our alliances are shaky. (I'm an American but | this affects the whole Western alliance) | h_anna_h wrote: | Not committing warcrimes, not going after whistleblowers | and journalists, not torturing people in prison and | keeping them confined for years without trial, and not | spying on the citizens of your own and foreign countries | would help the US diplomacy. | | It is like saying that rape victims who went to the | police are the reason that the life of the rapist is | ruined instead of his choice to rape people. | fscksnowden wrote: | What about the rest of the leaks that didn't involve the | items you mentioned? What portion of his leaks were | related to legitimate classified info? How many times has | he recklessly failed to properly redact? How many lives | put at risk? How many blown ops? | | Why focus on West? | TheGigaChad wrote: | Suck dick, idiot. | rbanffy wrote: | Look. I've met Assange and he felt like an asshole. I also | agree Wikileaks was used to manipulate an election in the | US, but, from that to claim he runs a "hostile intelligence | service" is a bit too much. | denton-scratch wrote: | I haven't met him. You aren't the first person who has, | who has said that. | | But personality aside, I don't think it's reasonable to | charge him with espionage and treachery. He can't be a | traitor, because he's never been a citizen - he owes no | loyalty. And he's no spy - he just reported the | information that was given to him. | | There are accusations that he failed to "redact". The | fact is that a Guardian journalist that Assange trusted | with the decryption key for a large part of the dump - a | certain Luke Harding <spit>, published the decryption | key. Assange felt compelled to publish the whole dump, so | that vulnerable people would know that Harding had | exposed them, so that they could protect themselves. | | I think the extent to which the Guardian betrayed Assange | is going to take a long time to come out. | encryptluks2 wrote: | I honestly have very little sympathy for Assange at this point. | The entire organization either appears to have been a honey pot | or front for foreign election interference. | rendall wrote: | This is a badly uninformed opinion | Applejinx wrote: | Not at all: from what I've seen, that sort of thing doesn't | have to start out as intentional nefariousness. We've just | got some state actors who've developed real skill and | determination at twisting all sorts of existing entities to | their ends: this is considerably easier in the service of | chaos politics than it would be if they were trying to set up | an orderly, top-down spy network or some such thing. | | You don't have to start OUT as a honeypot or a tool of | foreign intelligence. It would be a pretty lousy intelligence | service that had to start with pre-existing cooperation and | alliance. Much better to work at twisting things, and then | rely on rationalization and perhaps back it up with threat | and intimidation. There's nothing new about any of this, it's | just done with flair, ingenuity and determination. Or has | been: I think there's a limit to how far that can go. | sebow wrote: | I hear this from people all the time.However the media forgets | to mention (and obviously people wouldn't know most of the | times without them) that Wikileaks released a ton of info on | Russia, FSB, and other countries aswell.(Almost all parties | involved in european geopolitics) | | The situation is very simple: some truth got spoiled out, | people try to cover it. The Swedish charges were BS and a | pretext to keep him from fleeing to early somewhere, and the | rest is just classical silence the messenger. Wikileaks didn't | had a lot of dirt on asian & east-asian countries, because | obviously there are less whistleblowers and information is very | hard to acquire.Other than that I really struggle to see how | he's(or WL as an org) supposedly the villain and damaged the | society. | | People focus on the fact that the material was acquired | illegally, as that is somehow a good reason to ignore what | we've learned from them.I feel kind of pathetic being in the | 'western world' right now. | slim wrote: | If the wikileaks organisation does not look normal to you, it's | probably because you did not participate in any political | activism. For me all this amateurism looks familiar | daenz wrote: | For someone who has not followed Assange news for a long time, | what is the general accusation of his crimes? Is it just that he | published secret material that he received from other sources? | sneak wrote: | They are trying to get him on the conspiracy with Manning's | unauthorized access, based on chat logs AIUI. | | They have already done a great job turning public opinion | against him, though: the completely false claim that he was | charged with rape is widely believed and repeated. Anyone who | has fallen for this false narrative is encouraged to read the | exact words of the women involved. | | He has also been effectively imprisoned without trial for about | a decade now. | | Mostly he just serves as an example to what happens to people | extrajudicially for fucking in any way with the US surveillance | state and war apparatus. | plandis wrote: | > He has also been effectively imprisoned without trial for | about a decade now. | | It's a bit dishonest to claim he's been imprisoned without a | trial when he skipped on bail in 2012 and chose to stay in an | embassy instead of turn himself in to the UK government. | | He was arrested in 2019 and promptly convicted of skipping on | bail in the same year by the UK government. | sneak wrote: | Not at all. The UN's human rights department has found it | to be so: | | from https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/02/521632-wikileaks- | founde... | | > _The founder of the WikiLeaks website, which published | confidential diplomatic information, has been arbitrarily | detained by Sweden and the United Kingdom since his arrest | in London in December 2010, as a result of the legal action | against him by both Governments, the United Nations Working | Group on Arbitrary Detention said today._ | | Skipping bail to seek asylum in a country that will attempt | to preserve your human rights, when not skipping bail means | you get extradited to a country that will torture you via | extended solitary confinement prior to trial is not what | most people mean when they use the phrase "skipping bail". | If any description is dishonest here, it's that. | | A sham trial that you get tortured before getting to attend | is always something to be avoided. Let's not forget that | Manning was tortured to the point of multiple suicide | attempts in prison _prior to trial_ , as well as being | declared guilty in public by a sitting US president (also | before trial). | | Several senior officials in the US government called for | Assange's summary execution for publishing. There is | approximately zero chance that he will receive a fair trial | or humane treatment in the USA. | extra88 wrote: | > when not skipping bail means you get extradited to a | country that will torture you via extended solitary | confinement prior to trial | | On plenty of occasions, the UK has demonstrated its | willingness to not extradite suspects to the US out of | concern for their welfare. | | > declared guilty in public by a sitting US president | (also before trial) | | Because the US has not yet fallen under authoritarian | rule and has an independent judiciary, it's possible to | have a fair trial even when the president offers an | opinion about the case. But offering such opinions is | frowned upon because it's bad optics. Before you bring up | tainting the jury pool, an upside to the lack of civic | engagement amongst Americans is it's not difficult to | find people who won't have heard a president's or anyone | else's opinions. | stordoff wrote: | > not skipping bail means you get extradited to a country | that will torture you via extended solitary confinement | | An extradition request which has so far been denied, in | part due to the conditions he will face in the US, FWIW. | I'm not sure that it can be taken as given that an | earlier request (to the UK or Sweden) would have been | successful: | | > Faced with conditions of near total isolation and | without the protective factors which moderate his risk at | HMP Belmarsh, I am satisfied that the procedures | described by Dr. Leukefled[sic][1] will not prevent Mr. | Assange from finding a way to commit suicide. [...] I am | satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange's | mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit | suicide with the "single minded determination" of his | autism spectrum disorder. I find that the mental | condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be | oppressive to extradite him to the United States of | America.[2] | | [1] "[Dr. Leukefeld] is a psychologist employed as the | administrator of the psychology services branch in the | central office of the [Bureau of Prisons]" ([2] at 350) | | [2] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp- | content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As... at 361-363 | Miner49er wrote: | Pretty much, he's been indicted for 17 counts of violating the | Espionage Act, which yeah, is just for seeking/leaking | confidential info. It's a huge attack on freedom of the press. | The press has always been allowed to cover leaked stuff, the | Espionage act has only been used against sources in the past, | not reporters. | | He's also facing a very minor charge (max 5 years in prison) | for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for allegedly | helping Manning attempt to hack a computer. | breakfastduck wrote: | While I widely agree, if we're fair there's a difference | between a Journalist covering leaked stuff and literally | releasing the full unredacted documents to the public. | | Otherwise I agree. His treatment comes down to nothing other | than the fact the USA govt want to make it very, very clear | that they are willing to totally destroy anyone's lives who | dare publish the horrific things they're doing. | k1m wrote: | > if we're fair there's a difference between a Journalist | covering leaked stuff and literally releasing the full | unredacted documents to the public. | | It was actually senior Guardian journalists who compromised | the cables by publishing the password Assange had entrusted | them with. That's what led to the unredacted copies being | made available. Jonathan Cook has written about it here: | https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-26/guardian- | assan... | | > The Guardian book let the cat out of the bag. Once it | gave away Assange's password, the Old Bailey hearings have | heard, there was no going back. | | > Any security service in the world could now unlock the | file containing the cables. And as they homed in on where | the file was hidden at the end of the summer, Assange was | forced into a desperate damage limitation operation. In | September 2011 he published the unredacted cables so that | anyone named in them would have advance warning and could | go into hiding - before any hostile security services came | looking for them. | | > Yes, Assange published the cables unredacted but he did | so - was forced to do so - by the unforgivable actions of | Leigh and the Guardian. | fossuser wrote: | I thought the latter CFFA charge is what helps to enable to | former? IANAL though so I could easily be wrong about this. | | Basically helping to break into the computer system moves you | out of the realm of journalist and into the realm of | political enemy which now makes you vulnerable to espionage. | | I think there isn't much case law around this stuff though. | mywacaday wrote: | Are there any whistleblower protections in the US or why | would they not apply to Assange? | lazulicurio wrote: | I think the extradition ruling[1] from the UK judge assigned to | the case provides a pretty good overview. (In general, I'd | suggest trying to find primary sources as much as you can, | because there's a lot of misinformation flying about about the | case) Below are some of the allegations not related to | Thordarson: | | > It is alleged that WikiLeaks solicited material by publishing | a list of information it wished to obtain, its "Most Wanted | Leaks". In November 2009 this list included: "Bulk Databases" | including "Intellipedia", (a non-public CIA database) and | classified "Military and Intelligence" documents. In December | 2009, Mr. Assange and a WikiLeaks affilia te gave a | presentation to the 26th Chaos Communication Congress in which | WikiLea ks described itself as "the leading disclosure portal | for classified, restricted or legally threatened publications." | In 2009 Mr. Assange spoke at the "Hack in the Box Security | Conference" in Malaysia in which he made reference to a | "capture the flag" hacking contest and noted that WikiLeaks had | its own list of flags that it wanted captured. | | > Between November 2009 and May 2010, Ms. Manning was in direct | contact with Mr. Assange using a chatlog (the "Jabber | communications"). On 8 March 2010, it is alleged that Mr. | Assange agreed to assist Ms. Manning in cracking a password | hash stored on a DoD computer. Mr. Assange indicated that he | was "good" at "hash-cracking" and that he had rainbow tools (a | tool used to crack Microsoft password hashes). Ms. Manning | provided him with an alphanumeric string. This was identical to | an encrypted password hash stored on the Systems Account | Manager (SAMS) registry file of a SIPRNet computer, used by Ms. | Manning, and associated with an account that was not assigned | to any specific user. Mr. Assange later told her that he had no | luck yet and asked for more "hints." It is alleged that, had | they succeeded in cracking the encrypted password hash, Ms. | Manning might have been able to log on to computers connected | to the classified SIPRNet network under a username that did not | belong to her, making it more difficult for investigators to | identify her as the source of the disclosures. It is | specifically alleged that Mr.Assange entered into this | agreement to assist Ms Manning's ongoing efforts to steal | classified material. | | > On 31 December 2011, WikiLeaks tweeted "#antisec owning Law | enforcement in 2012." It included links to emails and databases | confirming that Hammond and AntiSec had hacked two US state | police associations. On 3 January 2012, WikiLeaks tweeted a | link to information which LulzSec/AntiSec had hacked and | published in 2011 headed,"Anonymous/Antisec/Luzsec releases in | 2011." In January 2012, Hammond told Sabu that "JA" had | provided Hammond with a script to search the emails stolen from | Intelligence Consulting Company, and that "JA" would provide | the script to associates of Hammond as well. Hammond also | introduced Sabu via Jabber to "JA." In January and February | 2012, Sabu used the chatlog Jabber to communicate with | Mr.Assange. On 27 February 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing | emails that Hammond and others hacked from the Intelligence | Consulting Company. On 27 February 2012 Hammond told Sabu, "we | started giving JA" materials that had been obtained from other | hacks. On 28 February 2012 Hammond complained to Sabu that the | incompetence of his fellow hackers was causing him to fail to | meet estimates he had given to Mr. Assange about the amount of | hacked information he expected to provide to WikiLeaks, | stating, "can't sit on all these targets dicking around when | the booty is sitting there ... especially when we are asked to | make it happen with WL. We repeated a 2TB number to JA. Now | turns out it's like maybe 100GB. Would have been 40-50GB if I | didn't go and get all the mail from [foreign cybersecurity | company]." Hammond then asked for help with ongoing computer | intrusion committe d by his associates against victims | including a US law enforcement entity, a US political | organisation, and a US cybersecurity company. In March 2012, | Hammond was arrested. | | > In June 2013, media outlets reported that Edward J. Snowden | had leaked numerous documents taken from the National Security | Agency and was in Hong Kong. It is alleged that, to encourage | leakers and hackers to provide stolen materials to WikiLeaks, | Mr.Assange and others at WikiLeaks openly displayed their | attempts to assist Snowden to evade arrest. | | [1] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v- | As... | fossuser wrote: | No, that's not illegal for somebody without a clearance. | | The crime he's charged with is that he was willing to (and I | think did?) assist in breaking into a computer system to get | the docs. I think under the CFAA. They have communication | records of this because the person he was talking to was | working for the USG. | | Had he just been accepting docs as he was initially that would | have been fine. | | It's hard to know the truth here though when nation state | interests are at play. To what extent were the sex related | charges against him political or flared up by nation state | meddling? | | At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to | target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange's | personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too. | | So, who knows? | Miner49er wrote: | > No, that's not illegal for somebody without a clearance. | | Yeah, but that's not stopping the US for charging him with | the Espionage act for it anyway. Most of his charges are for | leaking/seeking secret info. The charge for assisting Manning | is 5 potential years of the 175 he faces. | johnchristopher wrote: | > At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to | target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange's | personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too. | | There's a passage in Sarah Kendzior's book (Hiding in plain | sight: the invention of Donald Trump and the erosion of | America) which clicked (to me): ultimately things like | wikileaks damage societies and governments that are | transparent. You will always find more dirt and problems in | public/accessible records than in dictatorships. These | initiatives are doomed to be used at some points as tools | against healthy democracies/open states. | | edit: the passage | | > Among the few who saw the threat clearly was computer | scientist Jaron Lanier, who, in 2010, warned the public of a | new danger: WikiLeaks. At the time, free speech advocates | were hailing WikiLeaks, and its founder, Julian Assange, as | defenders of government transparency. Their lionization of | the leaker organization was largely due to frustration with | the criminal impunity of the Bush administration. In February | 2010, soldier Chelsea Manning exposed war crimes by sending | classified documents to WikiLeaks, which WikiLeaks then | published online. The emphasis on civilian victims led human | rights advocates to believe that WikiLeaks would prove a | formidable opponent for autocratic regimes. But after | WikiLeaks dropped hacked documents from the US State | Department in November, Lanier predicted the opposite--that | WikiLeaks would ultimately ally with dictators and that | social media networks would abet them: | | >> The WikiLeaks method punishes a nation--or any human | undertaking--that falls short of absolute, total | transparency, which is all human undertakings, but perversely | rewards an absolute lack of transparency. Thus an iron-shut | government doesn't have leaks to the site, but a mostly-open | government does. | | >> If the political world becomes a mirror of the Internet as | we know it today, then the world will be restructured around | opaque, digitally delineated power centers surrounded by a | sea of chaotic, underachieving openness. WikiLeaks is one | prototype of a digital power center, but others include hedge | funds and social networking sites. | | >> This is the world we are headed to, it seems, since people | are unable to resist becoming organized according to the | digital architectures that connect us. The only way out is to | change the architecture. | | > Social media sites didn't change the architecture. Instead, | over the course of the 2010s, the architecture changed us. | The calculus of post-Cold War politics--that democracy | spreads through engagement, that technology enhances freedom | --was reversed. Hostile states used digital technology not | only to attack their own citizens but to attempt to transform | foreign democracies into dictatorships. We saw this with | Russian influence operations in elections in the United | States, France, and in the Brexit referendum, among others.10 | The social media corporations that had once bragged of the | internet's liberating power now helped the hijackers of | democracy. Networks like Facebook abetted, whether | intentionally or not, the "iron triangles" of organized | crime, state corruption, and corporate criminality, and they | were aided by complicit Western actors content to let their | own countries die while turning a profit. | ralph84 wrote: | Lol no. The reason there is not as much damaging | information leaked from dictatorships, is because any | leakers are guaranteed to be executed. Reality Winner and | Chelsea Manning would have been executed after a 30 minute | show trial in a dictatorship. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Reality Winner and Chelsea Manning would have been | executed after a 30 minute show trial in a dictatorship. | | And Snowden, having escaped overseas but not being | particularly hidden, would have had an encounter with | some kind of nerve agent delivered by someone _totally | unconnected_ to the government he had leaked info from. | | None of which endorses the US treatment of any of them. | johnchristopher wrote: | That's not in contradiction of what I wrote. By their | very nature transparent and healthy democracies have a | larger surface attacks for leaks than dictatorships. | Applejinx wrote: | Lanier's smart, isn't he? It sounds like he was ahead of | the curve, here. | rbanffy wrote: | A vehicle that publishes anything without restraint is | just a loudspeaker. When Wikileaks got hold of leaked | emails in the middle of a political smear campaign, I | expected it to be better and delay the publishing. | sonnyp wrote: | I believe the reason you are getting down voted isn't | because you don't cite your source, but because the | reasoning is absurd. > You will always find | more dirt and problems in public/accessible records than in | dictatorships. | | Wikileaks isn't some sort Wikipedia of public/accessible | records, it's a platform to publish confidential | information. | | If the US gov is a healthy, democratic, open gov, how and | why can Wikileaks be so damaging? | | Should we stop newspapers? | johnchristopher wrote: | > If the US gov is a healthy, democratic, open gov, how | and why can Wikileaks be so damaging? | | Because we are still humans and fallible. No matter how | healthy, open gov or democratic our governing bodies are | I suppose there will always be something going off rails | at some points and it's much easier to spot it in | transparent governing structures (which usually means | democracies) than in non-transparent ones (which usually | means dictatorships). | | > > You will always find more dirt and problems in | public/accessible records than in dictatorships. | | > Wikileaks isn't some sort Wikipedia of | public/accessible records, it's a platform to publish | confidential information. | | Yes, yes. But it's easier to feed wikileaks with | information from democracies than from dictatorships. | | > I believe the reason you are getting down voted isn't | because you don't cite your source, but because the | reasoning is absurd. | | I am okay with downvotes ^^ as long as it's not a | flamewar. | sonnyp wrote: | > Because we are still humans and fallible. | | Did you look at what Wikileaks revealed? | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Leaks | | I don't think you realize the scale of what is happening. | These aren't some cute human mistakes or tax evasion. | | We are talking war crimes, environmental disasters, | political corruption, ... | | And yes - lots of it targets the US gov, maybe time to | rethink what the US (and others) gov is and isn't ? | | This isn't the work of fallible humans, this is the work | of malfunctioning states. | | Without Wikileaks, medias and investigation that reveals | the wrongdoings ... dictatorship is at the end of the | road. | | This is why the reasoning that Wikileaks helps | dictatorships and hurts democracies is absurd. | johnchristopher wrote: | > This is why the reasoning that Wikileaks helps | dictatorships is absurd. | | I never wrote that nor implied it. I wrote and I maintain | that wikileaks deals more blows to democracies than | dictatorships and that it's because of the very nature of | democracies (edit: notwithstanding the whole anti-US bias | of Assange). | | I don't know how to make my point clearer: | | - Wikileaks's leaks are mainly about democracies, not | dictatorships. | | - It creates tensions in these democracies and it does | not in dictatorships. | | - This consumes resources and has consequences in | democracies (civil unrest, lack of trust from the | population, investigations, weakening of governments, | tensions in relationships with other nations, etc.) | | - Whether it's a good thing or not, it's desirable or not | doesn't change the fact that dictatorships are not | diminished and are not the target of wikileaks while | democracies are. | | > We are talking war crimes, environmental disasters, | political corruption, ... | | And regarding my last point: I do not believe for a | second that we should ignore those facts in order to | appear strong or clean or whatever. | [deleted] | whatshisface wrote: | > _wikileaks deals more blows to democracies than | dictatorships_ | | I think the central fallacy here is seeing the central | operating principle of democracy, which is the informed | public feeding their knowledge and judgement back in, as | a blow to democracy. It is like a automotive mechanic | saying "there's your problem, the fuel air mixture in | your engine is exploding." The press reporting on the | government is one link in democracy's central cycle. | | Your are right about seeing reporting as a blow to | dictatorship, of course. In their case the action of an | informed public really is a blow to the state, following | the fact that the public is not part of the state. | | So in that light it's true that journalism does more to | help free societies than it does to hurt dictatorships, | since there's more of it in freer societies. | slg wrote: | >it's a platform to publish confidential information. | | Phrasing it like this is misleading as it implies that | Wikileaks is a neutral platform, a dumb tool that acts at | the leaker's discretion. That isn't what we see when we | look at their actual behavior. They do not publish every | leak they receive and therefore they have editorial | control over their platform. Assange himself has said | they have received leaks about the Trump campaign that | they wouldn't publish. That shifts Wikileaks from a | neutral platform to publish confidential information to a | political entity that uses leaked confidential | information to achieve political goals. | | EDIT: This is being downvoted so here is a source in | which Assange talks about having leaked info about Trump | and not publishing it.[1] | | [1] - https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential- | races/2934... | namdnay wrote: | I'm not sure why you're being downvoted so much, the point | is definitely interesting | | Imagine a leak comes out about Putin (you don't have to | imagine that hard..). It would hardly make any noise: | there's no more free press to raise a stink about it, and | the population is so used to swimming in the post-truth | sewage spewing from the top that they'll just ignore it | benmmurphy wrote: | Our elites would be more secure and less embarrassed if | they didn't have to deal with a free press but society is | made up more than the elites and we need weigh the | utility of the rest of society as well. | johnchristopher wrote: | > I'm not sure why you're being downvoted so much, the | point is definitely interesting | | I have observed a `shark smelling blood` thing going | sometimes on HN. If the timing is right and if a child | comment in an upvoted parent that is at the top of post | gets one or two downvotes then it has some visibility and | then it attracts downvote clicks. If there are 4 or 5 | other children they get ignored (I believe the last one | gets all the downvote because people parse from top to | bottom and only bother interacting with first or last | elements... so some posts will get buried while others | will sail through) _shrug_ , it might be all in my head | though ;). | h_anna_h wrote: | His crime was that he ran hashcat | https://blog.erratasec.com/2019/04/assange-indicted-for- | brea... | | > Had he just been accepting docs as he was initially that | would have been fine. | | They would just invent something else. | NaturalPhallacy wrote: | >The crime he's charged with is that he was willing to (and I | think did?) assist in breaking into a computer system to get | the docs. I think under the CFAA. They have communication | records of this because the person he was talking to was | working for the USG. | | The US government claims this, but it's not been proven. | | > _At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place | to target the USG with some plausible deniability and | Assange's personal anti-US politics became a corrupting | influence too._ | | This is just more Russiagate nonsense: | https://pics.me.me/russiagate-explained-wikileaks-posted- | the... | | > _To what extent were the sex related charges against him | political or flared up by nation state meddling?_ | | There are no charges. There never were any charges. There was | an investigation and that's as far as it went. | | > _UPDATE GREAT NEWS: Swedish prosecutors are about to | announce the dropping of the investigation into Julian | Assange on sexual offence allegations. There never were any | charges and the allegations were always nonsense, as detailed | in the below article I wrote a month ago:_ | | https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/05/no-rape- | char... | fossuser wrote: | I think you're overconfident in what you believe to be true | based on the evidence that exists. | | The Russian bit can be politically inconvenient for you and | yet also be true. | pstuart wrote: | It is interesting that apparently the GOP's email server | was hacked as well, but nothing was ever released | publicly. I'm no fan at all of the DNC but if "all | politicians are dirty" is a thing, then why did no dirt | spill out from the other side? | | Was it more valuable as kompromat? | nnvcxsstb wrote: | Let's see your source for the claim that the GOP server | was hacked | pstuart wrote: | Assumptions are be made, yes. But my comment was not | intended to be tribalistic -- shit's being hacked | everywhere. | | https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older- | republican... | https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/04/exclusive- | emails-o... | | If WikiLeaks is about exposing corruption doesn't it seem | like they'd do so across party lines? | | I don't trust either party but I also don't trust | WikiLeaks to be operating without agenda as well. | boomboomsubban wrote: | You've provided nothing suggesting Wikileaks was offered | the RNC hack and chose not to publish it. | Applejinx wrote: | Yup. Looks like it still is. You don't burn your own | people unless they are very bad. | rbanffy wrote: | Also note that, at that time, the Trump organisation was | running an EOL'ed MS Exchange server. It's reasonable to | assume it was vulnerable and that all information it | contained was leaked. | zionic wrote: | Highly misleading. The DNC's mail servers got hacked and | they got everything done | | The "RNC hack" was one guy's old laptop with a years out | of date local outlook db. Not even in the same league. | pstuart wrote: | > The "RNC hack" was one guy's old laptop with a years | out of date local outlook db. | | You have proof of that? This says otherwise. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia- | election-... | | I'm replying for the sake of challenging your statement | but I know it's likely not possible to have an honest | discussion about it because you appear to be taking a | partisan stance. I have no love for either party, and | even if I did love the Dems, I'd be more than happy to | acknowledge any and all failings of theirs. | | Can you say the same thing? | [deleted] | NaturalPhallacy wrote: | > _The Russian bit can be politically inconvenient for | you and yet also be true._ | | I'm not sure how it's politically inconvenient for me | when I'm a registered Pacific Green. | | People need to stop "thinking" in false dichotomies like | left vs right or liberal vs. conservative. Astrology is | six times smarter. | [deleted] | dragonwriter wrote: | > I'm not sure how it's politically inconvenient for me | when I'm a registered Pacific Green. | | The West being less hostile to and more willing to | collaborate with Russia is a frequent position promoted | in Pacific Green circles; Russia being tied to active | hostile activity against Western regimes is politically | inconvenient to that message. | NaturalPhallacy wrote: | >The West being less hostile to and more willing to | collaborate with Russia is a frequent position promoted | in Pacific Green circles | | Pure DNC propaganda. Zero basis in reality. | extra88 wrote: | I assume by "Pacific Green" you mean the Pacific Green | Party of Oregon. A quote from the party platform: | | > We the People must: [...] End the cold war with Iran | and the resurgent cold war with Russia, forestall the | emerging economic war with China, and withdraw from NATO. | | You might argue that this doesn't require being more | willing to collaborate with Russia but it absolutely | means being less hostile to Russia. | | https://www.pacificgreens.org/platform | landemva wrote: | I had not heard of that political party. Those positions | seem smart and reasonable for a country drowning in | deficit spending. | | Withdraw from NATO would be a good start. | | The not-to-be-praised former President attempted troop | drawdown from Germany, which was quickly reversed earlier | this year. | fossuser wrote: | Doesn't have to be left vs. right. | | Politically motivated reasoning can come from any party | or person. | | The comic's content suggested some anti-Hillary | sentiment, that paired with "Russiagate" suggested some | pro-Bernie political lean, Green Party probably fits with | that? Aren't they more hard-left? | | Sister reply is also relevant. | rendall wrote: | Extraordinary claims (Trump colludes with Russians, | Russians hack DNC) requires extraordinary evidence. In | over 5 years, this has not been presented. | belltaco wrote: | Plenty of evidence has been shown for this part: | | >Russians hack DNC | NaturalPhallacy wrote: | Nope: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets- | challenge-r... | extra88 wrote: | Yep. | | The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has | members who have done good work for the public and the | country. However, the memo referenced in your link did | not even have the backing all the group's members and its | arguments have been persuasively criticized. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran_Intelligence_Profes | sio... | rendall wrote: | These results are debatable and inconclusive, which is | the entire point. If you're going to accuse a sitting | President of collusion, you had best have all your ducks | in a row. Anything less can be perceived as, or even be | indeed, partisan hackery. | extra88 wrote: | Why are you bringing up Trump? This is about whether | Russians hacked the DNC's email, that doesn't require | collusion or even awareness from the Trump campaign. | | But since you did bring him up, it reminded me that in | July 2016, weeks after the DNC announced being breached, | he publicly called on Russia to release information about | Clinton. Candidate Donald J. Trump, verbally and in | writing, called on a foreign government to interfere with | the presidential campaign against his opponent; doing it | in public doesn't make it okay. | | "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find | the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will | probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if | that happens. [...] By the way, they hacked -- they | probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do. They | probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted | because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see." | | I don't think "collusion" is the right term for what he | did (the attempts to access emails had started in March); | I don't know what the right term is, I just know it's not | okay. | rendall wrote: | No. There isn't. There are lots of people saying they | have evidence and referring to other people who say no | its true they really have evidence. When you dig it's | just circular self-references all the way down. | johnchristopher wrote: | > this has not been presented. | | s/presented/investigated | | There's a lot of things to investigate | https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money- | helpe... but since the whole world saw what happened on | the 6th and what did not after I don't think there'll | ever be evidences extraordinary enough to act on any kind | of claims. | nnvcxsstb wrote: | What happened on the sixth? You mean the Reichstag Fire? | | https://greenwald.substack.com/p/questions-about-the- | fbis-ro... | | The whole world saw what the FBI wanted them to see on | the sixth. Time will tell what actually happened. | rendall wrote: | Lots of "evidence" in the form of breathless articles | quoting anonymous sources who say they really have a | smoking gun. This evidence is convincing only to those | who are inclined to believe it. What we need is | _extraordinary_ evidence that is unambiguously convincing | to everyone. That we do not have | fossuser wrote: | They traced it back to the IRA and named the specific | people involved on the Russian side and the method (email | phish of Podesta). | | The Mueller report goes into specific detail or you can | listen to the lawfare blog podcast that goes through it. | | "Collusion" is a poorly defined term, the report found | their actions didn't rise to the level of criminal | conspiracy, but there was plenty of evidence that the | campaign was interested in support and responded to it | ("collusion"). | | Donald Trump Jr. just didn't realize Russia was | interested in getting the Magnitsky act revoked when he | took the meeting and he was disappointed when the | Russians didn't have the "emails" (from the private | server, not the DNC emails). The Russians thought they | could manipulate their self-imposed orphan adoption ban | issue, but DTJ didn't care about orphans. | | American intelligence agencies (or any intelligence | agency) are not going to provide you with the precise | methods they use to determine where the attack came from. | | I suspect no evidence will meet your extraordinary | standard because you're only looking for evidence that | supports an existing position based primarily on | political motivated reasoning and cognitive bias. | rendall wrote: | > _I suspect no evidence will meet your extraordinary | standard because you're only looking for evidence that | supports an existing position based primarily_ | | Let's s start with even minimal evidence before we get to | worrying about my cognitive biases. | | Read #8 in this article: | https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of- | official... | | _" Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike, testifying in secret to | congress, ... saying there was not "concrete evidence | that data was exfiltrated from the DNC,""_ | joshuamorton wrote: | You've already been provided and discarded more than | minimal evidence. | | For example, in the muller report, a more extensive | investigation, the specific hacking unit is identified. | Whether or not crowdstrike knew in 2017 doesn't matter. | Today we know APT-28 was responsible, and they're members | of the GRU. | extra88 wrote: | The claims are not extraordinary. The Trump Tower meeting | [0] is clear evidence Trump campaign members' interest in | colluding with foreign agents. Donald Trump personally | had a fig leaf of deniability about that meeting but in | interviews [1] he expressed his willingness to collude. | | The Trump campaign, at minimum Paul Manafort, colluded | with agents of Russia [2]. | | I'm not going to research how strong the public evidence | that Russia was behind the DNC hack but again, it's not | an extraordinary claim. [0] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting | [1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive- | interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered- | dirt/story?id=63669304 [2] | https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-paul-manafort- | russia-campaigns-konstantin- | kilimnik-d2fdefdb37077e28eba135e21fce6ebf | rendall wrote: | Before you continue with a flood of poor and | circumstantial evidence that's hard to sort through and | falsify, the claim that a President colludes with a | foreign power is extraordinary. | Applejinx wrote: | Not at all. In wealthy enough circles, power has no | nationality. This is just capitalism in action. Where it | gets interesting is the ways that power can take | advantage of HUNGER for power and money. Trump was a | kompromat machine, but remarkably easy to influence as | the guy doesn't care about anybody or anything other than | himself. He doesn't even particularly care about the | Republican Party, then or now. | extra88 wrote: | If that's "a flood," you must live in a very dry place. | A. He wasn't president at the time. B. While it's | natural to assume that a candidate is aware of, and is | ultimately responsible for, everything his campaign does, | I've distinguished between his campaign colluding and | Trump personally colluding. C. Everything that has | already been made public about the campaign makes further | claims that are less well documented not extraordinary. | | > poor and circumstantial evidence that's hard to sort | through and falsify | | Allow me to spoon-feed an important part to you. Don Jr. | publicly released emails about the Trump Tower meeting, | those are real and not circumstantial evidence in his | desire to collude and others in the campaign attended the | meeting with foreknowledge of this. Google 'don jr "i | love it"' and there are a zillion news stories about | them, I don't know how you missed them at the time. An | NPR story linked to a complete PDF [0] of what Don Jr | released. Here's the beginning of a NY Times story [1] | about them: | | > The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could | hardly have been more explicit: One of his father's | former Russian business partners had been contacted by a | senior Russian government official and was offering to | provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton. | | > The documents "would incriminate Hillary and her | dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your | father," read the email, written by a trusted | intermediary, who added, "This is obviously very high | level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and | its government's support for Mr. Trump." | | > If the future president's eldest son was surprised or | disturbed by the provenance of the promised material -- | or the notion that it was part of a continuing effort by | the Russian government to aid his father's campaign -- he | gave no indication. | | > He replied within minutes: "If it's what you say I love | it especially later in the summer." [0] | https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3892196/Donald- | Trump-Jr-Email-Exchange.pdf [1] | https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump- | russia-email-clinton.html | rendall wrote: | And there you go with the exact flood I predicted. | | Here is my reply. Simple. | | https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of- | official... | [deleted] | extra88 wrote: | This strikes me as whataboutism. It has nothing to do | with the message to which you replied. | | Your link is primarily about the press being | insufficiently skeptical about sources in stories related | to foreign intelligence. At yet it contains lines like | this: | | > No matter what, the clear aim of this report is to cast | certain stories about Joe or Hunter Biden as | misinformation, _when the evidence more likely shows_ | that material like the Hunter Biden emails is real, just | delivered from a disreputable source. [emphasis added] | | Taibbi is revealing his bias at the same time he's | claiming bias influenced the contents of a report. | | I'm all for healthy skepticism in the public and | especially as a part of journalists doing their jobs. | Journalists absolutely consider what sources have to gain | or what axes they may have to grid. But reflexively | assuming anything from the government is a lie is just as | bad as assuming it's true. And when there's a public | statement or report, that _is_ news and needs to be | reported on. | rendall wrote: | The guidelines require assumption of good faith. So, if | we look at the same evidence and I find it lacking, your | first goto assumption should not be "well, you have a | cognitive bias while I am free of such". | | > _reflexively assuming anything from the government is a | lie_ | | While true, this is a non-sequitur. "The government" is | not a monolith. Some in "the government" insist that | Russia hacked the DNC, usually Democrats, while others in | "the government" insist that it's nonsense | philjohn wrote: | The bar for extradition doesn't require the US to prove it | - the only place they need to prove it is in court when | he's in the US. | | And "Russiagate" is a bit more nuanced than that - | Wikileaks claimed to have GOP emails as well but for some | reason never released them. | NaturalPhallacy wrote: | > _Wikileaks claimed to have GOP emails as well but for | some reason never released them._ | | [citation needed] | extra88 wrote: | I haven't heard that claim before either. | | The Wikipedia sources for the DNC hack article [0] say | the RNC wasn't successfully hacked. "GOP" refers to the | entire Republican Party so I suppose there could be | emails from a different Republican origin than the RNC. | | > intelligence organizations additionally concluded | Russia attempted to hack the Republican National | Committee (RNC) as well as the DNC but were prevented by | security defenses on the RNC network. | | Searching for a source for the GOP claim did remind me of | internal WikiLeaks messages from 2015 showing at least | Assange's preference for the GOP over Hilary Clinton. | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Nationa | l_Committee_email_leak#United_States_intelligence_conclus | ions [1] | https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange- | wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/ | slg wrote: | Emails specifically? I'm not sure if that has ever been | confirmed, but this is directly from Assange[1]: | | >"We do have some information about the Republican | campaign," he said Friday, according to The Washington | Post. | | >"I mean, it's from a point of view of an investigative | journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with | the Trump campaign is it's actually hard for us to | publish much more controversial material than what comes | out of Donald Trump's mouth every second day," Assange | said. | | When it comes to leaks about Democrats, everything is | worth publishing. When it comes to leaks about | Republicans, it needs to "controversial" to be worth | publishing. | | [1] - https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential- | races/2934... | [deleted] | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | From Wikipedia: | | >The charges stem from the allegation that Assange attempted | and failed to crack a password hash so that Chelsea Manning | could use a different username to download classified documents | and avoid detection.[41] This allegation had been known since | 2011 and was a factor in Manning's trial; the indictment did | not reveal any new information about Assange. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julia... | | I don't believe it counts as journalism if you help someone | commit a crime- that's the crux of the issue. Notice that real | journalists who are passive receivers of information do not get | criminally charged. | kingsuper20 wrote: | >what is the general accusation of his crimes? | | Realistically, he simply pissed off members of the ruling class | of the US. Their presence has become significantly more obvious | in recent years. | | Other than that, I'd say it's mostly a 'show me the man, I'll | show you the crime' sort of thing. | wyck wrote: | Rats tend to be complete sociopath's and in many cases | psychopaths, the police need to be held more accountable for | onboarding these personalities instead of covering their own | asses. There are several cases in Canada in which paid informants | lied for years (decades) causing massive harm, and 2 cases which | ended in mass murder, while still on police payroll. Yet the | police somehow wash their hands of it all. | tgv wrote: | In this case, he was diagnosed as such. The article claims he | simply did it to avoid prosecution. | beebeepka wrote: | I am shocked, shocked I tell you. | | Same with ridiculous rape charges. The spooks must have scared | that poor woman to death. I guess that what you get for exposing | major war crimes by the good guys. | | He is alive but his life is ruined and Bradley is a woman. Yay | for justice | | Edit: I really don't understand the downvotes. What, exactly, do | you find objectionable? | hedora wrote: | The woman never accused Assange of rape. The police did, over | her objections. The UN special rapporteur's report goes into | more detail, though the UN has produced so many documents | detailing all the ways in which his detention is illegal, I | can't find the right link. | jasonvorhe wrote: | You don't have to dead name trans people. Chelsea Manning chose | her name, please respect that. | [deleted] | beebeepka wrote: | What I am saying is that Manning was forced to take that path | | I actually have had sex, multiple times, with trans people. | Careful with your assumptions. I find your response offensive | elif wrote: | your sexual preferences and personal offense are irrelevant | and the rule you are debating has about as close to | consensus acceptance as you will find in the queer space. | | If you indeed think "dead naming" is something someone made | up for an internet comment, you are missing a large portion | of the picture. | beebeepka wrote: | Forgive me for saying that I find that a person would | change their gender after being imprisoned and tortured | rather suspicious | | If you take that as some kind of attack on trans people, | that's on you | dang wrote: | You've been posting tons of flamewar and/or unsubstantive | comments to HN. That's not cool here and we ban accounts | that do it, so if you'd please stop doing it, we'd be | grateful. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | tootie wrote: | This article seems awfully biased. Calling him a sociopath isn't | very objective. | chmod775 wrote: | From the article: | | > According to a psychiatric assessment presented to the court | Thordarson was diagnosed as a sociopath | DevKoala wrote: | Is there any way to vote against the current way the FBI/CIA | operates? They are straight up coercing witnesses with fake | testimonies to get a man prison, whose only crime was sharing the | truth about the shameful inner workings of our American | government. | emmelaich wrote: | Vote for the party which is most critical on them. | | Currently Republicans though it used to be the Democrats. | | Embedding undercover agitators in radical groups goes on all | the time I'm sure. It's valuable but very easily abused, too. | fidesomnes wrote: | > Is there any way to vote against the current way the FBI/CIA | operates? | | The SES is more equal than you, citizen. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_Executive_Service_(Unit... | deadite wrote: | This sounds like a very anti-American sentiment. You don't get | to air the dirty laundry of a country trying to keep a lid on | chaos because they do something you don't like now and then. I | want to know that the intelligence agencies, and the military | that safe guard us, are able and willing to go to any length to | preserve our way of living, even if it means they overstep. Not | just one country, but all Five Eyes and then some. Because if | they don't, there are actors all over the world who will take | advantage of any "shame" and use it as a weapon until they | subjugate you to their rule. Look at Russia and China for great | examples of that. If you think the things these agencies do are | so bad that they need to be voted against, you have no idea how | bad things really are. So no, Assange's "only crime" wasn't | "sharing the truth about the shameful inner workings of our | American government." There's nothing to be ashamed about. He | should be thankful he's still alive, and you should be thankful | you can post this kind of a sentiment without having any | repercussionary fear. Hope for your sake that it doesn't | change. | cmckn wrote: | This is insane, "even if they overstep"? No one is above the | law. What's more American than democratic accountability? | Telling American citizens to stop asking questions is | appalling. | pope_meat wrote: | Reading this comment gave me anxiety. | | Liberty is unchecked authority. | | That's a take. | [deleted] | neolog wrote: | I have so many questions about your background and | upbringing. | sketchyj wrote: | That's a lot of words but you didn't answer the question. The | CIA and FBI are not accountable to Americans. You may be a | fan of, or even work for, these institutions. But they are | unaccountable and authoritarian and opaque. | eternalban wrote: | The interesting question to ask is to whom are they | accountable. | slipframe wrote: | > _This sounds like a very anti-American sentiment_ | | Chilling words... | Dah00n wrote: | If that is "very anti-American sentiment" I'll bet a beer (or | 10) that 99% of the earth share that "anti-American | sentiment". | sb057 wrote: | Vote for politicians who will pass laws that dictate how they | are to operate. Alternatively, if it is an avenue in your | state, start a referendum to pass a state law calling for a | Constitutional Convention (requires 34 states) to pass an | amendment to deal with it. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-06-26 23:00 UTC)