Whatever you think of Assange, you should know why the US government wants to prosecute him. He published this among other things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8xhH0FkCQg
Context: that’s a US gunship firing on Reuters journalists among other civilians including kids.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=A8xhH0FkCQg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Isn’t it bonkers that they want to put him in jail for publishing a thing that is today hosted freely on YouTube?
What if I told you that’s not why at all.
It’s definitely “why” they want to put him in jail regardless of what anti-journalism charges they hit him with.
I know, it’s about the conspiracy charge, it was a poorly worded musing.
deleted by creator
Assange is a bit of a scumbag, but unrelatedly, his efforts for freedom of information should not land him in US torture prisons like many others.
Removed by mod
Not a single non US citizen should be extradited to the US. The US has the worst prison system and punishments outside of some really cruel regimes. They also refuse to work with international criminal courts.
Besides I’m pretty sure the guy only committed a crime in Sweden and not the US.
Does he deserve to be in prison for the rest of his life?
Removed by mod
And what does that have to do with the fact that he faces over 100 years in prison?
Removed by mod
His moral righteousness is irrelevant to the fact that he is being persecuted for journalism.
It’s not like the core thing he did to even be noticed is relevant.
The fuck does this mean? The core thing he did to be noticed is also the thing that’s getting him persecuted.
I feel like you’re not allowing two statements to be true.
-
Assange is being doggedly pursued by the US for leaking state secrets. No I do not think he deserves to be punished for information he released like with Afghanistan. I think we are better for it and clearly this is the US making an example of him. Obviously we all knew he would be pursued, but again, I think that was the morally right thing to do, and I believe in protecting whistleblowers
-
I also take umbrage with any attempts to make him out to be a good person or in any way virtuous, which is what the comment I responded to did. He isn’t. He had my support when he was standing for transparency, and he lost it when it became clear he saw leaks as a tool for his political preferences and friends.
We can hold these two ideas at the same time.
As for the sexual assault allegations against him, I have no clue what to think the waters are too muddy there. So I just don’t engage that generally.
-
moral righteousness is irrelevant to the fact that he is being persecuted for journalism.
I think the question is, when does the line between journalist and espionage intersect?
Does his state sponsored participation in election interference count as journalism? Did his misinformation campaign during the Catalan independence movement count as journalism? How about the attempt to bribe the Trump administration for the ambassador seat to Australia?
There’s a reason every serious journalist that Assange utilized to launch wikileaks has not only abandoned the project, but has accused Assange of financial fraud, miss handling information, and endangering their sources.
I don’t think Julian Assange is a journalist, I think he just likes being famous, and at one point journalism was a way to do that. I don’t think he should be in jail for the rest of his life, but I also don’t think he deserves Carte Blanche for everything he’s done based on his prior “journalistic integrity”.
someone painting him as a morally righteous
The first thing @seSvxR3ull7LHaEZFIjM said was: “Assange is a bit of a scumbag” …
The closest thing to “righteousness” said was: “his efforts for freedom of information should not land him in US torture prisons like many others.”
Which, being true, it’s absolutely not challenged or contradicted by anything you said in response.
Note that “freedom of information” is totally compatible with “picking and choosing” the manner in which you exercise that freedom. In fact, I’d argue that the freedom of “picking and choosing” what’s published without external pressure is fundamentally what the freedom of press is about.
Assagne (like any other journalist) should have the freedom of “picking and choosing” what facts he wants to expose, as long as they are not fabrications. If they are shown to be intentionally fabricated then that’s when things would be different… but if he’s just informing, a mouthpiece, even if the information is filtered based on an editorial, then that’s just journalism. That’s a freedom that should be protected, instead of attacking him because he’s publishing (or not publishing) this or that.
Can you really blame the man for picking sides after all the US has done to him personally over the years?
Yes. Wikileaks is supposed to be a tool of transparency. Not a tool for his political revenge.
I’m not saying I condone what he did, but I can understand it from his perspective. I’d probably do the same thing if there were a country responsible for ruining my life and health and I had the information to inflict some damage.
I am not saying I condone what he did
I’m not sure what we are debating/discussing. If you’re going to claim you are a bastion of transparency and information for the general public, then no, you can’t weaponize your site and omit politically damaging information about political groups you agree with/are aligned with.
That’s not just revenge against the US. That’s failing to provide the transparency you claim to stand for. He chose to obscure information based on his own whims. How is that not an issue?
Wikileaks had their own leak and it was a very interesting read.
@BolexForSoup just to be clear are you saying that journalists with a political or ideological slant should not be afforded the same protections as other journalists?
No, I believe it’s pretty clear they’re saying journalists who claim total transparency should have total transparency, not obscure some things because they want to. If you claim to want to protect children and then do a bunch of things to hurt children, you lose your standing as a protector of children. The same here. If you claim total transparency and then hide certain things you lose the claim of total transparency.
If you claim total transparency and then hide certain things you lose the claim of total transparency.
Sure. I agree. I just don’t see the relevance to whether or not you should be extradited to a foreign country that uses inhumane conditions.
Oh yeah, totally agree with that. I don’t know if anyone should be extradited to the US regardless of what they did.
Especially since he isn’t a citizen and shouldn’t be subject to US laws.
Unfortunately the whole “isn’t a citizen” thing might work against him. IIRC courts have ruled the Bill of Rights applies to citizens, including freedom of the press.
The whole situation is absurd though.
Oh yeah, US courts justifying their continuous rights abuses of foreign detainees is absurd and should be legitimized by no international judgements.
One more reason to not extradite Assange. Let him sit trial for everything else he’s allegedly done in countries with humane criminal justice systems, but do not subject him to either Manning’s, or worse, as you say, non-citizen’s torture in places like Guantanamo Bay.
I’d say since the first full year of him living in an embassy ended, we can’t be justified to call him a scumbag.
Other than that - his sense of humor in the NetBSD fortune files and other traces in the Internet maybe sucks, but he’s a better role model than Snowden (whose life is somehow much easier, which is suspicious really).
Why would he be a better role model than Snowden?
Because unlike Snowden you can somewhat trace him before the big story which made him known, and that trace is connected with, as I said, NetBSD and cypherpunk culture, the good stuff.
While Snowden is some messiah which came out of nowhere and is still free and well. It’s just suspicious for me.
Removed by mod
How are you arriving at that idea?
The Australian government voted on a motion to bring him home. He is a journalist who did nothing wrong.
Espionage is something wrong. Hiding behind a Russian website to make your posts that threaten us national security?
That definitely a paddlin’. Widdew ol juwian did nuffink eh?
He is a journalist who did nothing wrong.
You mean besides the rape where he hid in Ecuador until the statute of limitations ran out?
Every political opponent of America is a rapist and their hard drive is filled with child porn when they get arrested
There’s a pattern here…
It must be the pedophilia that makes them expose America
Well, this is not the accusation that the US is interested in at the moment. You could say much worse things about trump, and he is running for presidency. So there is that.
You could say much worse things about trump
Then that implies Trump did nothing wrong? It’s all a government conspiracy to attack Trump?
No. The point is, Assange should not get persecuted for his actions as a journalist. You are saying he should because of rape allegations (why that matters in this case is your argument not mine). Yet, the president candidate of the same country was found guilty of rape and is not persecuted.
thats what being a dissident gets you in the us.
may there be mercy on his soul if he even gets extradited.
not even in the US
Luckily political dissidents don’t need to fear for their life/freedom in the west, ow wait.
Btw what is up with those rape charges, or did Sweden conveniently drop them the moment Assange was pulled from that embassy?
"On 12 August 2015, Swedish prosecutors announced that the statute of limitations had expired for three of the allegations against Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy. The investigation into the rape allegation was also dropped by Swedish authorities on 19 May 2017 because of Assange’s asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.[5][6] Assange said in these proceedings that he feared he would ultimately be extradited to the United States if he were sent to Sweden.
In May 2019, the Swedish Prosecution Authority reopened the investigation against Assange. The prosecutors expressed the intent to extradite Assange from the United Kingdom after he served his 50-week prison sentence for skipping bail.[7] In June 2019, the Uppsala District Court denied a request to detain Assange, thereby preventing his extradition to Sweden.
As of 19 November 2019 the prosecution dropped the case because “the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed” although they were confident in the complainant.[8]"
It was a rhetorical question, but yes, April 12: dragged out of embassy, November 19: Sweden drops charges. And soon thereafter America suddenly says they would like to extradite him to the US even though they denied this for years while Assange was in the embassy.
Honestly, I skimmed this title and thought it said he was found in a ditch. I’m surprised he has lasted this long.
Too high profile for the ditch… Right now. He gonna get gulag like navlny until the regime is comfortable to dispose of him
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I don’t like this journalist’s source, let’s fucking kill him
To all the clowns here protecting Assange as a “dissident”, I suggest you read up on his conmection to Israel Shamir.
Assange is a huge asshole who doesn’t give a shit about journalism or exposing wrongdoing.
He definitely (cherry) picks on the US of A. Does he have to take on everyone to be a True Scotsman?
Removed by mod
Fuck you
liberal values on full display
He ran out the clock for the rape charge against him in Sweden? What a scumbag.
Afaik the charges were just a tool fabricated to be used against him.
He exposed US war crimes and therefore they made him an enemy of the state and want to make an example out of him, to show others that when going against the US you have no rights - they can torture you, imprison you forever, etc.Afaik the charges were just a tool fabricated to be used against him.
Yes, that’s a very popular conspiracy theory among his online supporters. It’s founded in literally no material evidence of any kind, but that’s never stopped a conspiracy theory from gaining traction.
I thought there was a lot of basis for this. Testimonials from the girls in question, where the escalation to “rape” from “broken condom” was after learning about there being another girl. The definition of what can end up being translated as “rape”, is also not the same as one typically assumes when hearing that word in English. “Tampering with a condom, such that it leads to unprotected sex”, can be considered “rape”. Yet, the act can still be consentual. The other I believe accused him of taking advantage while asleep. Which would be fair to say, not lost in translation. But, she also didn’t mind him staying at her place for more days.
It’s been a while, so the details might be off here. Something along those lines at least. Also, naming the accused, was awfully strange, as it is just not done in Sweden for cases like this.
Probably enough information here:
In 2010, a Swedish woman initially referred to in the press as Miss A said that Assange had tampered with a condom during sex with her on a visit to Stockholm, essentially forcing her to have unprotected sex. She has since spoken publicly under her name, Anna Ardin. Another woman, referred to as Miss W, said that during the same visit, Assange had penetrated her without a condom while she was sleeping.
What part of this does not seem like rape?
Not sure I understand what you are asking. Do you need help with reading? Not really interested in that. Maybe see if there is a class near you. Good luck.
I think you’re the one who doesn’t understand. I’m effectively accusing you of rape apologism. Because that’s what you’re doing. You’re saying an act of rape, assuming it happened, doesn’t really “count” or that the people involved who believe they were raped were “asking for it.”
I’m effectively accusing you of rape apologism. Because that’s what you’re doing. You’re saying an act of rape, assuming it happened, doesn’t really “count” or that the people involved who believe they were raped were “asking for it.”
Aha. I see. Then I wasn’t wrong about suggesting improving reading skills. It might also instead be related to logic and inference. In either case, sounds like a you-problem. Good luck with that!
Why would the spooks leave material evidence. The conspiracy doesn’t have to be very large to work.
I have to say that the suggestion that the absence of any evidence of a conspiracy is itself evidence of a conspiracy is some truly 10/10 pants on head conspiracy-brained logic. Very impressive.
Nah. People think that conspiracies need to be some large crazy hyper complex operation with many moving and confusing parts, but they don’t have to be. It’s far easier to keep things under wraps if your conspiracy is small — only involving a handful of people — and, you have the ability to throw people in jail for the rest of their lives if they leak it i.e. the US security apparatus. I could see a small team of spooks being given the free rein to concoct a honey trap for assange and making it stick, all without any real public physical evidence. It’s not the wildest thing versus all of the Q-anon nonsense.
username checks out
AFAIK the only reason one would rather fight extradition to the U.S. in the UK than fight extradition to the U.S. in Sweden is because one committed a heinous crime in Sweden.
Afaik the charges were just a tool fabricated to be used against him.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the US did something like this, but considering the rampant history of powerful men in media/tech having a penchant of utilizing their power to sexually assault women, and the fact that there have been multiple reports from people working for wikileaks reporting him for sexual harassment… I dont really doubt that he did sexually assault someone.
