That came very early for me. I also believed Wikileaks was a force for good (I was thrown off by the name, Wiki implied to me being something like Wikipedia), then they released the Collateral Murder video in 2010 which revealed Assange's intentions (propaganda). From Wikileaks' perspective, it was a great move because it brought them massive publicity and they basically made their name off of it.

> (propaganda)

meaningless. what you mean to say is "something I disagree with"

I can't agree. First off, they say they stand for transparency. That's often synonymous with impartiality but not always.

Second, one of the candidates in this election has previously stated that Assange should be killed.

To me that moves the motivation from founder's grudge to self-defense.

>Second, one of the candidates in this election has previously stated that Assange should be killed.

Claim does not hold up.

http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/

> one of the candidates in this election has previously stated that Assange should be killed

Is it really biased to expose lies and wrongdoings of a person who called for you to be executed without trial?

It is if the claim is bullshit

Anyone who ever thought it was the first was deluding themselves. Assange has always has an agenda. It's just that his old supporters don't like the new flavor of his Koolaid.

OTOH, many of his old Republican enemies who were calling for WikiLeaks to be treated like al-Qaeda love him, for now. And they have a lot more power and influence than the anti-establishment outsiders that were his old supporters, so he's definitely improved his own situation.

Maybe I've missed it, but most of the coverage and statements from Republicans on this seem to include disclaimers about how irresponsible Assange has been (hard not to when he dumps SSNs), while still happily using whatever red meat they can find.

If Assange had 'an agenda' (how nebulous) then why would he have been successful at interviewing the world's most cited academic, Noam Chomsky, and other high-level thought and political leaders? What exactly is the 'agenda' he is supposed to have? You are spreading fallacious FUD.

Are you really implying that Chomsky doesn't have an agenda? He's more famous for his political nonsense, e.g. being a far-lefty who supports people like Castro and Chavez, than his actually (very good) linguistics research.

Yes, I am.

Chomsky publishes his research and backs his arguments with innumerable facts, the man is practically a walking encyclopedia of US foreign policy, human rights violations and hypocrisy over the last 100 years.

The difference between an academic and someone with an 'agenda' is that one is interested in the truth and publishes cited analyses, the other is only motivated to impress a particular opinion.

Chomsky is voted by the global community of academics as a valued member of that community. Against that shadow, your assertions are valueless.

What's his agenda ?

In addition to forcing transparency on governments, corporations, and non-profits around the world, I think he would like to secure his own future freedom.

It seems highly likely that a Trump administration would give him immunity or a pardon.