General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat if Assange had released the Mueller Report/Trump's Taxes?
I believe, with respect to Assange, we should consider the situation from a different standpoint. I bet if he had released the Mueller Report or Trump's taxes there would be a lot of people here defending him.
Sure, he may be a despicable human personally. That is not what the free press is about though. It's not about the character of the publisher or the journalist. It's about their actions in reporting information to the public.
ON EDIT AND IMPORTANT: The charges stem from him assisting Manning. From exposing Bush-Cheney/GOP lies. When they come for people like Maddow it may be too late to stop them.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)Yep, you bet people would defend him.
elleng
(130,154 posts)STOLE/ hacked, NOT protected. (I don't care who.)
bitterross
(4,066 posts)So I guess you must be agreeing with me.
elleng
(130,154 posts)I haven't read everything, so can't be sure of that basic fact.
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)WE don't know whether he did or didn't hack/steal intelligence.
I object to people calling Assange a reporter - he's not, or a journalist - he's not. THOSE are HIS words.
What he is, is an agent of chaos. His releasing of documents is completely one-sided and biased. WHERE is ANYTHING on the trump administration's illegal, corrupt machinations ? [crickets]
He was NOT charged with espionage, which would be a violation of the freedom of the press.
Jamal Khashoggi was a journalist.
DURHAM D
(32,595 posts)Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)Anymore, you can find a "news" source to back up almost anything.
Several days ago, a young man burned three Black churches. The "news" is saying it was due to his taste in music, as opposed to him being a RACIST.
See what I mean ?
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Many feel the current indictment is just a placeholder.
jcgoldie
(11,584 posts)...was in deference to Putin. What he did had nothing to do with freedom of the press and everything to do with Russian propaganda.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)He released a ton of stuff that showed Bush-Cheney were liars. And, BTW, these charges are for that.
dhol82
(9,351 posts)After that release it was all right wing shit.
Nice that it was the original stuff that got him arrested. Karma.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The extent you will go to distort the facts and just plain make stuff up, as if others do not have independent memories, is impressive.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)That's all I need to know.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)The charges stem from the Iraq War Logs that exposed the lies of the GOP and Bush-Cheney.
When they come for Rachel Maddow and others on our side will you still be so certain?
dansolo
(5,376 posts)Even his support of Trump accomplishes that.
Takket
(21,425 posts)not going to play hypothetical games to excuse participating in propaganda campaigns designed to undermine lawful elections.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a Jew.
Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak for me.
THIS is the result of choosing to not play any hypothetical games.
then they came for the computer hackers that broke the law and worked with a hostile foreign power and no one shed and tears for them
PeeJ52
(1,588 posts)I wonder how they got all their information... not that I mind.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Back when he was helping Pvt. Manning disseminate secret military files. Since Assange dissed Hillary, he's persona non grata.
Lithos
(26,397 posts)It was more that he was a "pseudo"-journalist whose prosecution for rape was being coopted by those who thought what was an attempt to silence him.
At this point, after a much greater reveal - he's still a rapist who is also into hacking and working as an operative for the Russian spy organization.
To be honest, I think though that he's prominently mentioned in the Mueller report and will likely be found a "suicide" rather than be coopted to sing out what he knows from his ties to helping the Russians and Trump via the Hillary (and other) leaks.
As for Chelsea Manning - I think I will be quiet - I have transgender friends who have spoken very harshly about her in terms of her stability.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Assange was lauded here. Yes, after that, enthusiasm for Assange dropped, but he was still not vilified routinely.
Manning is still in search of a quiet place in life to simply be oneself.
Lithos
(26,397 posts)Yeah, Assange, nay Wikileaks - was regarded as a savior of the "truth". He benefitted from this "noble anonymity of purpose".
Sad to see he has many supporters now. My only concern is that he's so tied into the Russian cyberwar for the hearts and minds of conservative America that he's gonna be suicided away before he spills the beans.
Otherwise, he's a deplorable.
Manning has issues. My transgender friends were very clear in their desire for another person who is serving as an example (introduction?, ambassador?) to their community. There are some very real desires and emotions which make her very vulnerable. I hope she finds her inner peace and safety away from the limelight.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...among kindred spirits...
gulliver
(13,142 posts)Russia fed Wikileaks the product of a crime by a foreign adversary. Manning fed Wikileaks the product of a crime that Assange may have aided him in committing and that harmed U.S. (our) interests in the world. The Mueller Report and Trump's taxes are not even close to in the same category.
Flaleftist
(3,473 posts)brush
(53,474 posts)Fuck him.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)[Helping trump/putin was just . . . ah, 'happenstance'?]
brush
(53,474 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 12, 2019, 06:30 PM - Edit history (1)
I repeat, fuck him.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)mercuryblues
(14,491 posts)None, what so ever. Maybe if he didn't hide out from his rape charges I might. He's a weasel.
blogslut
(37,955 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 12, 2019, 07:11 AM - Edit history (1)
Because that's the crime he's been charged with.
blm
(112,920 posts)Would he?
bearsfootball516
(6,369 posts)The last thing Putin wants is the unredacted Mueller report leaking to the United States electorate.
mitch96
(13,821 posts)THAT would be great. An employee at Wikileaks leaks tRumps taxes and Mueller report.
Then what "they" do?
m
blm
(112,920 posts)brush
(53,474 posts)We'll take the report and trump's taxes though.
I doubt it will happen as he'd shown us who he is.
"When people show you who they are, believe them."
Maya Angelou
doompatrol39
(428 posts)...hypocrisy is not an exclusively Republican phenomenon. People on here are more than happy to forgive sins and crimes when it's in service to our side. Although I should also clarify that "our side" only seems to include certain people which makes it even more hypocritical.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Even if his hacking and disseminating information about Iraq was the right thing to do (not taking a position on that) how in the hell could he believe helping Trump would make the world a better place.
Secondly, I may have a right to know what the Government is up to, but I don't have a right to a person's stolen private emails. Podesta was not a government official.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Releasing those items is not in Putins interest.
Mr Tibbs
(539 posts)It was pretty obvious by all his ass kissing that he was bucking for a pardon from Trump.
dewsgirl
(14,961 posts)would never even consider this. They gave him his own tv show on Russian TV.
Perhaps he/Wikileaks was a legitimate journalistic enterprise a long time ago(I highly doubt it).
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Instead, he did the work of the Russians.
Comparing Julian Assange to Rachel Maddow? Ridiculous on its face.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)I read your posts all the time and have great respect for you. We're often on the same side of an argument. Particularly when someone with a name beginning in "gui" is throwing out red meat to the religious. When we disagree though, we really disagree.
In this case, we may have to agree to disagree. However, I'd like to convince you to see things differently in this case.
As I understand it, the most important issue at hand, the US is trying to blur the line between encouraging a person who leaks with actively helping that person obtain information that is protected. If Assange helped Manning crack passwords that is far different than just encouraging Manning to crack them and provide the documents. If Assange actively helped Manning try to crack passwords then Assange must be prosecuted. I will not defend him for that.
There is a great deal of subtlety between encouragement and actively helping. We need to keep that in mind.
We need to keep in mind the current occupant of the White House is accusing the opposing party of treason on a regular basis. Of fomenting a coup with the Mueller investigation. Subtlety is not his specialty. Painting with a broad brush is.
Painting with a broad brush can be something that will sweep up a Maddow or a Colbert. That sort of thing is repeated in our history.
If a publisher or journalist encourages a leaker to leak is that a crime? Does it rise to conspiracy?
I will not defend Assange and his being a Russian asset for Trump. I have no desire to do so. What I am considering is not at all the same thing though.
The actions for which he is being charged have nothing to do with his Russian collusion.
They have to do with his association with Manning and exposing the Iraq war lies. We must not allow our disgust of the latter to cloud our judgement about the former.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Given that, I do not support him in any way. As for being put on trial here in the US, I have no real opinion on the charges against him. As someone who was entrusted with Top Secret information documents, I signed a pledge not to reveal them under any circumstances, whether I agreed with their contents, reason for being created, or anything else. So, I did not, and would not reveal such information.
Assange played a role in the public release of such documents. As a foreign national the charges against him might be different than for the person who transferred that information to him. That person broke the law. Assange, as a foreign national isn't really subject to our laws, in that regard, and had no access to such documents until they were given to him.
I consider Julian Assange to be a threat to civilization. I do not like Julian Assange. But I will leave him to whatever legal challenges he might face. I'm not competent to say any more than that about him.
I will leave the disposition of Assange's case to whatever jurisdiction is responsible for those charges. The person who gave the documents to him has already been tried. Manning served some time for her actions. Civil disobedience comes with the risk of being tried and convicted. It's all part of the commitment.
All I can say is that I would never have gone against my pledge to keep such information secret, unless it were a life or death matter and only to the extend that they applied to that matter. Even then, I would have made every effort to deal with it within legal challenges. I signed that pledge voluntarily, but honor my commitments.
My views on this have not changed. I have expressed them before.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)I have been neutral on Assange all along. Not really in favor of him, but not willing to judge against him.
I thought his aiding Manning, the acts for which he is now charged, was proper. That was long before any widely-know Russian collusion. It exposed the US doing the same sorts of things we always do in wars. Namely, war crimes.
Whether he actively aided her is a question the courts will now decide.
I, personally, think it is proper to separate the acts of exposing Bush-Cheney for war criminals and liars from the acts with Russia supporting Trump. If I were on a jury in a criminal case I'm pretty certain the Judge would instruct me to do so.
On DU there is no such instruction. People are free to combine all acts to come to a conclusion. I do not think that is always proper.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)It isn't just publishing the information but the way he acted.
---
Throughout the 2016 campaign, Mr. Assange played down accusations of Russian interference, and misled the public on his source for the damaging documents WikiLeaks released.
He offered a $20,000 reward for information about the killing in Washington of Seth Rich, a young Democratic National Committee staff member shot to death in an apparent bungled street robbery. Some supporters of Mr. Trump suggested that it was Mr. Rich who had leaked the committees emails and that he had been killed in retaliation.
During an August 2016 discussion with Dutch television about the sources of WikiLeaks information, Mr. Assange suddenly brought up Mr. Richs killing.
That was just a robbery, I believe, wasnt it? the interviewer said. What are you suggesting?
Im suggesting that our sources take risks, Mr. Assange said. He then declined to say if Mr. Rich was a source.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/us/politics/julian-assange-wikileaks-russia.html
This just isn't credible. I don't support prosecuting him over 2010 and you're right this current indictment has nothing to do with Russia.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)He has released some altered documents in the past.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/23/are-clinton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/
"I would be shocked if the emails weren't altered," said Jamie Winterton, director of strategy for Arizona State Universitys Global Security Initiative, citing Russias long history of spreading disinformation.
Experts pointed to the Democratic National Committee email hack that happened earlier this year. Metadata from the stolen and leaked documents showed the hackers had edited documents. For example, hackers were kicked out of the DNC network June 11, yet among their documents is a file that was created on June 15, found Thomas Rid, a war studies professor at Kings College London.
A few weeks later, Guccifer 2.0, the hacker believed to have Russian ties, released documents supposedly stolen from the Clinton Foundation. But security analysts reviewed the documents and found that they actually came from the DNC hacks, not the foundation. And some of the information was likely fabricated, like a folder conspicuously titled "Pay to Play."
In massive document dumps like the Podesta email leak, the risk of encountering altered documents is heightened because its easy to slip them in among thousands of genuine documents, said Susan Hennessey, a Brookings Institution fellow and former lawyer for the National Security Agency.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russian-dnc-hackers-planted-leaks-with-fake-data/#db7456452ff9
The first evidence that the hacker crew responsible for the breach of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) snuck false information into their leaks has been uncovered by a group of researchers.
The hackers, a group called Fancy Bear that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement claim to be sponsored by Russia's intelligence unit, the GRU, planted the information inside a leak of emails belonging to a journalist and critic of the Putin regime, according to a report from Citizen Lab, a University of Toronto-based organization. That formed part of a massive hacking campaign attempting to steal Google passwords from 218 targets across 39 countries, including former American defense officials.
Though Citizen Lab couldn't definitively tie Fancy Bear to those "tainted leaks," Forbes separately obtained evidence that indicated the group was responsible.
It marks a worrying moment in the early history of mega-leaks: the doctoring of data and the subsequent promulgation of that legitimate-looking information to prop up propaganda. "Tainted leaks are the next frontier of disinformation: an attempt to really tamper with the integrity of large sets of information that people will believe to be genuine," said John Scott-Railton, researcher at Citizen Lab.