If this had been flipped, and he had only published anti-Trump stuff, would you be making the same comment? (Honest question.)
It's odd to see people fighting to suppress information about the so-called "good guy" when in fact they ought to be considering why they would vote for someone who was involved in such things. Maybe most people just want to feel loved and protected by a powerful warlord.
On one hand, I have daughters, and don't want misogynistic defenders of rape-culture having any power over them.
On the other hand, I care about fairness and justice.
On my third hand (yay radiation!), Clinton is an evil sociopath who is bound to be largely ineffective as your president thanks to a republican legislature. Trump, however, is an incompetent demagogue who I think will cause a massive amount of un-needed suffering in this world.
So my honest answer is, I don't know. It probably depends on if I'd taken my meds that day and how emotional I was feeling.
This is the position of some of the people/groups he's embarrassed. As if to say "Yes, I've been caught, but the person who helped catch me has it out for me, let's just ignore this".
Also, as the US Army intelligence service underscored a few years ago, Wikileaks is ripe for propaganda use, since information can be provided to WL to suit political goals, and with some information removed to create a specific impression.
The US Army Intelligence analysis also suggested that an effective strategy to harm WL would be to leak materials that would reflect poorly on it and and cause people to question Assange's motives. No doubt all powerful entities (governments, people) realize this. WL has many enemies and so likely many are using both of these strategies as situations permit.
Have you read the details of the rape accusations? Sweden has a particular definition of rape that is far more encompassing of conduct that in most jurisdictions constitutes fully consensual activity. Since the claims against Assange would be considered claims of consensual sex in the US, it's hard for me to take them entirely seriously, yet the label of "Rapist" persists. This phenomenon is truly bizarre.
The question to ask is, what qualities do we most hope something like Wikileaks has, so that it can aid the process of truth, transparency, and careful investigative journalism. I'd suggest the following:
- Strong willingness to work with mainstream news outlets to create high production quality investigative journalism (Assange has done all he possibly could).
- Resilience to meddling by the many enemies one makes (Assange has done well with this).
- Reinforcing the strength and bias-free nature of the institution (Assange has made clear that he finds Trump and Hillary both despicable, yet this comment is ignored by many such as yourself).
I think he is just playing sides. Trump doesn't give a crap, but Hillary knows he's after her. Putin has shown an eager willingness to give asylum to Snowden, him, and anybody else. I just think he's a sociopathic narcissist who watched too many thrillers and wants to wield power against governments.
- Strong willingness to work with mainstream news outlets to create high production quality investigative journalism (Assange has done all he possibly could).
- Resilience to meddling by the many enemies one makes (Assange has done well with this).
- Reinforcing the strength and bias-free nature of the institution (Assange has made clear that he finds Trump and Hillary both despicable, yet this comment is ignored by many such as yourself).
Assange has a problem with women. His character assaults against Clinton and journalist Zeynep Tukfeci are pretty good indicators of this.
Is this due to Assange? Or due to the war on whistleblowers? Given the resource constraints of WL, Assange must choose between publishing unredacted information and not publishing at all.
If Assange had not reached out to the worldwide mainstream press, I'd fault him for releasing unredacted material. But the press (and shamefully, the NY Times in particular) has rebuffed Assange and been unwilling to produce investigative stories handed to them on a platter by Assange (via leaked info).
To understand this we must turn to the basic power relationship and realize that major news outlets are largely state propaganda outlets, or at least prefer to act in this role most of the time. Assange did not likely expect this. I certainly didn't, as it seems too cynical a view... of course the NY Times would want to publish details revealing corruption or lies committed by our most trusted officials...
It's easy to vilify Assange and to assume an emotional motive for everything he publishes. Assange's goal is the legitimization of Wikileaks and its maturation into a respected news institution. He cannot get there (especially given his resource constraints) by playing politics. While he does occasionally make a divisive comment, he generally lets the leaked documents speak (unredacted) for themselves.
> His character assaults against Clinton
Are you arguing that the information revealed by the DNC emails is not a reflection of very significant character flaws in Clinton?
Again, your argument is yet another conspiracy theory. You can't argue against this, because no matter what, it's the Cigarette Smoking Man in the background. And the resource-constraint argument is an excuse for sloppy, irresponsible journalism.
The argument that wikileaks is not at all affected by Assange's emotional and mental state seems to be an attempt to make him out to be an altruistic, infallible god, not a human .
Major news caters more towards the people that give them money, and they base their content choices on their sponsors.
It seems that every time Assange has a bowel movement, all of the major news sources write about it as front-page news, and immediately every comment is about how no major news outlet is reporting on wikileaks.
> Are you arguing that the information revealed by the DNC emails is not a reflection of very significant character flaws in Clinton?
I haven't read them all, so can you clue me into what they exposed about her directly in contrast to what they exposed about the DNC organization?
And were you aware of my other point, his attacks on Zeynep from the New York times? She pointed out the danger the leaks put women in. Instead of saying, "hey, that leak wasn't our fault, but mea culpa anyways, we're sorry". Then when she pointed out that if he'd had some Turks read the emails they'd have laughed and said "don't bother", he again went into a campaign of character assaults against her?
Not at all, neither of us knows what information was submitted to WL, so perhaps the issue is that nothing as significant as the war logs was submitted. We know for a fact that the US has significantly tightened up its infosec policies since Chelsea Manning's revelations. These are facts and no conspiracy theorizing is involved whatsoever. My friends who work for the Federal government would never even read this HN thread while at work, so there has been a legitimately chilling effect on the culture as well.
> sloppy, irresponsible journalism
Holding WL to some imaginary journalistic standard is absurd. It would be one thing if the NY Times got the story and overshadowed WL by publishing a carefully redacted, professional piece. But the major news outlets do not for the most part have systems in place for anonymous drop off of data, and simply do not report on much of what WL gets access to. If you ask me, that is the major journalistic failure. Can Assange, with a tiny team, copy edit and responsibly redact everything? Of course not, but we know from his previous releases that he strongly prefers to and that he is operating WL in survival mode at the moment due to harassment from some of the parties he's leaked information about.
> It seems that every time Assange has a bowel movement, all of the major news sources write about it as front-page news, and immediately every comment is about how no major news outlet is reporting on wikileaks.
This statement does not make sense. Assange is not Wikileaks, and Assange's personal failings are not Wikileaks. The stories which don't see much reporting are the actual factual content about corruption and misdeeds by government officials! The problem is that we get stories about Assange's personal details but not any real substance.
I'd rather not sidetrack this discussion into the content of the DNC emails, but would be happy to do so in a different thread.
What's truly bizarre is the crowd who's first to invoke "innocent until proven guilty" is so opposed to the proving part.
You don't really believe that Swedish inquiry is a part of due process, do you? I really doubt if the charges were incriminating whatever constitutes U.S. edition of rape, your position would be any different.
What it come downs to, you guys really really are attached to this fella, simply because he was saying all the right things and going by all the points you read in Cypherpunk Manifesto. You are willing to excuse him things that you'd find inexcusable to anyone from the "establishment".
Not at all. Please recall that Assange has a legitimate concern about extradition and has had to seek political asylum. In spite of this he has offered to face the charges if some assurance could be made that he would not be taken into custody and extradited.
Since Assange is a political refugee, I take his concerns seriously. He has shown no sign of being unwilling to face the charges, and the new prosecutor has requested them to be dropped.
What I find most upsetting is that there appears to be some sort of strategy going on where the governments are trying to ensnare Assange and get him extradited (and imprisoned for espionage).
While it is possible that Assange did commit espionage, the bigger problem is that the US Government has not faced any accountability for the revelations in the Iraq or Afganistan war logs. We're talking about pretty serious illegal behavior if not war crimes that were revealed, and there have been zero consequences. Bush got re-elected and Obama continued and escalated Bush's policies!
Wikileaks is a tiny "institution" that has focused scrutiny on some very large and powerful institutions. As an American citizen who values transparency and the proper functioning of the checks and balances (and democratic process) as well as the appropriate and desirable adversarial relationship between the press and government, I am profoundly disappointed at the lack of consequences or accountability both for the war logs and for the Snowden revelations.
In terms of the total harm caused by these situations, allowing the US Government to survive these sorts of revelations unscathed and unaccountable is terrifying, and goes strongly against the core principles on which our nation was founded.
In general, Assange is a very minor player who happens to have (boldly, foolishly, selfishly, or whatever) helped to reveal some information that we simply must act on. The messenger is simply not important, nor are his personal failings.
So to correct your misapprehension, the story never should have been about Assange at all, at any point. The story should always have been about the misdeeds and corruption revealed by Wikileaks.
He broke the bail and went on the run. If that doesn't constitute "unwillingness to face charges", am not sure what does.
I would agree with you though that Assange persona isn't particularly important in the grand scheme of things.
He's been confined in an embassy building for quite some time, which is roughly equivalent to a minimum security prison! He'd likely not have faced this level of punishment for the alleged sex crimes even if he'd been found guilty of them. It's important to recall that he's been forced to seek political asylum. Being labeled a rapist and unable to vindicate himself (for fear of extradition) is also likely quite upsetting to him if he's innocent.
Not at all. The unknown is why the Swedish government won't offer Assange assurance that he wouldn't be extradited. It's probably because he would be, hence, his position is rational. Both the prosecutor and Assange may be acting rationally, as may the Swedish government -- after all, why would it decide to irritate the US by not extraditing Assange?
I would prefer if Assange's guilt or innocence in the rape accusations were determined, because the accusations generally get in the way of the mission of Wikileaks, which I generally support. I don't have a soft spot in my heart for Assange, and if he does turn out to be guilty it will not impact my view on the important issues (the war logs, etc.) whatsoever.
Who cares if Assange himself is a hero or villain, I'm not the sort of simpleton who needs to pretend that everyone whose actions I support is a faultless model citizen. The important issue is that he (hero or villain) helped reveal some very important information about the US Government which should lead to consequences and accountability.
He has always very openly had a political agenda. You just don't like the new flavor of his Koolaid.
- Anti-Hillary
- Anti-Hillary
- Pro-Trump
- Pro-Putin
- Anti-Hillary
- Opportunistic
Backtrack a few years ago, and it was the Republicans and all their supporters who wanted to tar and feather Assange for the Snowden leaks. Hannity talked about how Assange should be in jail and all the crimes he committed against the US intelligence community, got CIA people killed and on and on and on.
It's clear it depends on who's OX is being gored with Assange, which makes him a unique personality to deal with. I don't think he picks sides, he just always picks the publicity angle and doesn't really care who gets in the line of fire. The funny part is how each side treats him like a savior or some kind of patriot but then when he gets leaked documents on their side, suddenly he's the bad guy?
I just don't like him period, but he does have a flair the dramatic doesn't he?
He actually has a pretty consistent agenda - reveal shocking stuff that people don't want revealed, and do it with a dramatic flair. Yes, a couple years back his releases on Iraq / Afghanistan had some things that enraged Republicans and were praised by Democrats. Now he's exposing their house.
He's an agent of chaos with a self promotion streak. Saying his agenda is anything beyond that ignores history.
I'm not a big fan, but I think endangering the non-decision makers is bad.
Although I'm not sure if that is because the majority of the documents he gets are from the US, or if the US has been, and always will be, a place where secrets are so tightly guarded anybody that has an avenue to expose some of them are going to do so.
Does Wikileaks get documents from other countries? Has he gotten the amount of publicity in other countries from those leaks that he has on his US documents?
Seriously. What has "innocent until proven guilty" devolved into? You're bordering on libel.
Until a court has convicted Appelbaum of the crime of rape, he is not a rapist.
I personally think that the accusations may have a kernel of truth, but are greatly exaggerated by the participants. Only a criminal court is properly equipped with means (both legal and time) to resolve this matter.
'Innocent until proven guilty' concerns the court system, but not the rest of civil society. If someone throws up all the red flags of a rapist, nobody is obligated to balk at them.
To be a truly civil society, we have a moral obligation to raise ourselves to this standard.
Oh no, it does concern society as a whole, or otherwise libel and defamation would not be classified as crimes...
Let's be clear that there's a vast difference between "a court has not convicted him of that crime" vs "he did not commit that crime". A statement can be factually true, even if you can't prove it in court and thereby you lack a legal defense against defamation.
Legally, I'm defaming Al Capone right now, because was into racketeering. It might be unwise to say that, as it would open me to prosecution, but it's certainly not untrue for that reason. (I've thoughtfully considered the risk, and will accept any libel charges from his estate.)
In any case, were Al Capone still alive, you would have to be a complete idiot to treat him as anything but a gangster. Feel free to extend the analogy on your own, and conclude what you will about the public figures in tech who face several rape accusations.
http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf
They're sometimes useful, and sometimes useful idiots. I think groups like wikileaks are a good thing, and it would be better if there were more of them, to prevent what seems to have happened here where they've been steered into supporting Putin's geopolitical agenda.
Is there any evidence for leaks that would have such effect but which wikileaks is not publishing?
When you add in Julian Assange's antisemitism and lack of respect for women, it all makes sense.
He ran away to the embassy in 2012 because he refused to take responsibility for his sexual assaults. In 2010 he hired Israel Shamir, an extremely outspoken antisemitic blogger, to help run Wikileaks, and a number of photographs show that they had been close friends for some time before Assange hired him. When he was confronted about this by Private Eye in 2011, he began spouting conspiracy theories about how the Jews were out to get him.
Assange is alt-right and has always been.
Assange being alt-right and the fact that he is going out of his way to leak material that improves the chances of the standard-bearer of the alt-right, Donald Trump, becoming head of state of the most powerful country on Earth are absolutely 100% linked together, and those links should be investigated.
Some information should not be public for a reason.
You're assuming that the goal is to expose something - that is, you're starting your argument with the idea that he's got some political agenda to achieve.
But he's stated that his goal is to weaken the powerful by making it so that they can't trust anyone to keep their secrets. In that context, any uncovering of a leader's secrets is work toward his goal.
You can argue that the costs of what he's doing exceed the benefits, but I think your claim doesn't support the argument you're trying to apply it to.
Is there any evidence that he lacks respect for women? I have not yet seen any. He was accused of something which in Sweden is called "rape" but in the US would be called "consensual sex". Is that what you are referring to?
If you have sex with someone and tell them you will use a condom and don't, that isn't consensual.
Sweden is not the only country that considers sex with someone sleeping or otherwise unconscious as rape; a quick look at UK law for instance seems to bring this up in section 75 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42). Even in Mr. Assange's native Australia, failure to withdraw from sexual intercourse after consent is withdrawn appears in itself to be considered "rape" in all districts but Queensland. (https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/25.%20Sexual%20Offences...)
There are varying degrees of rape in Sweden, as I understand it Mr. Assange is being accused of the most minor degree of rape due to the circumstances. Still, it seems like what he is accused of is typically labeled "rape" in many places.
http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/julian-assange-rape-case...
Saying you are wearing a condom when you aren't is wrongdoing.
Of course it is. Assange disputed the accusation and claimed that there was mutual understanding of the status of the condom. In any case, barring an unwanted VD or pregnancy, it seems peculiar to decide to pursue legal action about this a month after the fact.
While it's possible that Assange acted boorishly and inappropriately, I think rape is not the right word to describe it. Would a woman who lied about having been on birth control reasonably be said to have raped a male partner?
No. But birth control isn't the only aspect to the issue. As you stated, sexually transmitted diseases are an issue. More of an issue arguably.
Also, two women have reported the same behaviour (to my knowledge). Although not enough to be considered a pattern, it's disconcerting.
Yes, it is my understanding that at least one of the women and the new prosecutor involved have expressed that the case should be dismissed.
I don't know what they stand for. But I visit generally progressive-leaning places on the internet and know I'm supposed to hate them.
I still haven't even figured out who the "reactionaries" are or what they believe in. I think what happened is some people used the wrong word when talking about "contrarians" and through a game of telephone turned created a new political boogieman.
Is the conservative side of the (American) political spectrum really going through this much ideological turmoil and restructuring? I haven't heard about it in any of the mainstream news when I glace at it, nor from the conservatives I talk politics with at work. It looks like a way for the left to shill hate.
It's a small group of maybe 10,000, of which 5,000 don't even take the positions seriously, just love to troll millennial college "activist" consumer-types. The Clinton speech about the alt-right will have the same effect as Geraldo Rivera's goofy coverage of Neo-nazi skinheads in the 80s - multiplying their numbers a hundred-fold.
I completely agree that this group exists, that this phenomenon exists. However, it's also apparent from the way many people use the label "alt right", that they are not limiting themselves to describing this group.
Then why the fuck is anyone talking about them? Is the left really so terrified of taking positions or believing in anything at all that they have to scrape the bottom of the barrel like this for something to talk about?
There's a tiny group of terrible people who happen to also be alt right. We are supposed to associate any person who is labelled "alt right" with that tiny group even if they have nothing significant in common with them.
That's an interesting suggestion. It does look like many so called alt righters seem to be contrarians, non-conformists, critics of mainstream ideology or 'normal' right wing ideology. We need more of those people, and we often benefit from listening to them.
Some of them have beliefs I find abhorrent, but they also clearly do not all share the same beliefs.
Narrow minded bloggers and such on the left have cultivated this widespread belief (among some liberals) that we should automatically despise and ignore anyone that gets labelled "alt right"
It's basically used like the 'Bernie Bros' thing was when he was still running for president. A near meaningless buzzword to insult people the user disagreed with.
At a point in time, I truly believed Assange's goals were justice and transparency, now I am beginning to feel like he has his own political agenda, and is making sophomoric attempts to affect political change.
In 2016 Wikileaks's agenda seems to be:
The AKP leak falls into that last line. The coup happened, it was frightening (I watched two F-16s fly over the city at mach1+ for six-hours, and the helicopter which landed at BJK was so close to us at a cafe we could see the faces of the guys inside when it banked), and they capitalized on that fear to increase their own credibility and to demonize the ruling party here.Unlike previous leaks Assange and his gang didn't put ANY effort into vetting the "leak". He didn't have to, because within certain crowds Wikileaks is an indisputably trusted source. His perceived persecution makes him beyond reproach, and now any criticism can be blamed on a conspiracy theory.
Rapist? CIA/Sweden persecuting him. Bail jumper? CIA/Mi5 persecution. Committed the crime of jumping bail? CIA/Mi5. Hiding in Ecuador for years? Illegal CIA detention. His best buddy Jake Appelbaum is a rapist? CIA.
This amount of trust and credibility would certainly make it easier for him, or a foreign agent, to spread malware. It's probably just a slip-up on not scanning the emails before publishing. But if it isn't, what are the odds that they are traced back to Russian hackers?
(Edited for typos and formatting. )