I, for one, think that all information should be free. I think Pompeo's motivations are suspect and geopolitical and I don't trust him personally. However, I also think that Wikileaks has a myopic view of information freedom that chiefly benefits powers whose long term vision is the decline of liberal democracy.
Where else are we going to get insight into the globbal power "underworld", which the intelligence community just happens to always have a finger in? Anonymous sources feeding into New York Times? Because that's all we had before and continue to have today otherwise.
People just don't like when certain inconvenient information comes out and Wikileaks didnt care about the source.
People constantly try to pin ideological stuff on Wikileaks or data leaking in general but that misses the bigger point and it's a point that extends beyond Wikileaks itself and goes into information releasing in general (we don't need to defend Assange personally or Wikileaks itself to be concerned or defend the general idea). I also highly doubt they are selectively choosing NOT to release political information... like news outlets apparently do.
But I also don't care, there's a huge amount of risk and blowback doing such a mission regardless of source or content which we should respect.
They get what they can from where ever and publish it if it has some value to the general public, and we've gotten tons of value from Wikileaks already. So do plenty of other organizations now inspired by Wikileaks, plenty which have exposed corruption in a new way (like Panamaleaks).
The fact this sometimes can have an 'agenda' or be exploited by the original sources will never negate the value of a neutral 3rd party who releases stuff publicly we'd never see otherwise. And will continue to do so as long as operational.
My only fear is that there won't be people brave enough to do this given nation-state harassment and those who think its all a political-inspired conspiracy (which litter every social media site).
It turns out Wikileaks does care about the source https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
To be absolutely clear: I don't have any reason to doubt the motivations of Wikileaks' current leadership. I also genuinely believe that they treat all leaks as "equal," in the sense that they believe in the absolute freedom of information and are liable to (eventually) release everything that they're given.
The observation is tantamount to the tragedy of the commons: give malicious actors unlimited means under an ostensibly just principle, and your principle will be monopolized for malicious ends or used to subvert itself.
But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have commons, or that I want to live in a world without Wikileaks. It's just an admonishment to be aware of a risk inherent in "neutral" venues.
I agree with your sentiment, but we are all aware of the role WL had in the 2016 election. And in chats Assange was found to have said, “We believe it would be much better for GOP to win,” .. and then he continued to play the Seth Rich conspiracy angle until finally distancing from it.
Under scrutiny, the agenda is not as neutral as one would like, and the consequences of this lack of neutrality are massive.
Nonetheless, in that case as well as in the case of Wikileaks, any result of reporting the truth should be blamed on the people who committed the unpopular acts, not the people who reported them.
1) Claims of neutrality are evidence against being neutral
2) performance of neutrality is evidence of neutrality
3) blind adherence to neutrality is evidence of not understanding the goals of neutrality
Everybody is biased. Always.
There are no exceptions to this rule.
>We believe it would be much better for GOP to win, Dems + Media + liberals woudl [sic] then form a block to reign in their worst qualities. With Hillary in charge, GOP will be pushing for her worst qualities, Dems + media + neoliberals will be mute.”
Not only is Assange allowed a personal opinion, why would a pro-GOP preference matter? Pro-GOP sites deserve their freedom of the press trampled?
...by exposing the hypocrisy of said liberal democracies. What good is a liberal democracy when the demos remains oblivious of the negative aspects what the cracy is doing?
If things like the collateral murder videos, or the treatment of Manning and Snowden are the work of said "liberal democracies", then I'm fully in the camp that wants to decline them, and replace them with better, more transparent, more accountable structures.
> If things like the collateral murder videos, or the treatment of Manning and Snowden are the work of said "liberal democracies", then I'm fully in the camp that wants to decline them, and replace them with better, more transparent, more accountable structures.
But that's not what will happen. Instead, populists will rise to power under the ruse of libertarianism, or going back to "the old ways." Eventually the nation will continue to divide itself until it collapses under internal infighting. Almost as if by design...
Exactly! But that's predicated on "we see wrong". What Snowden and Wikileaks (and the various paradise leaks) showed, is that there's a lot of wrongs we don't see.
Maybe I didn't specify this explicitly in my earlier post, but my core position is this: attacks on Wikileaks are attacks on the ability for the voting population to see the wrongs, and as such are attacks on democracy itself. It's ironic for the CIA to claim that Wikileaks "works towards the decline of liberal democracy", when the CIA itself is working to suppress democratic checks and balances.
the CIA in the past has installed brutal dictatorships and actively tortured the most vulnerable of our own citizens. I think it's fair to say protecting liberal democracy is hardly a priority of theirs.
Most people on HN are pretty well informed of the less than nice things the .gov has done over they years even if they bury their heads in the sand when advocating for expansion of government scope on <insert personal favorite issue here>.
And the right has their own laundry list of reasons the government is not to be trusted. Those people have nearly zero trust for pretty much any gun-toting federal agency.
I wouldn't say that people are "oblivious". I'd say that people are divided on how to fix the issues.
At least with information in the open, people can attempt to grok the full picture for themselves.
Wikileaks can't guarantee that.
How many of them were killed/disappeared? If you can't cite a number in the hundreds (or even one case), your comparison is false.
No contest but I think GP point was not about the absolute quality of democracy right now but rather about which power did more to destroy democracy in the recent years.
Are you really saying that the FBI has and continues to celebrate a criminal [1] and their own criminal behaviour as most exemplary? For nearly half a century now? And no bi-partisan political rebuke? And are not treated with total contempt by every adult in the USA and every court in the world?
How is that remotely possible? Surely this is a conspiracy theory?
Many Americans do hate him. But it's important to note that Hoover's criminality did not extend to the average White American: his efforts focused on Black Americans, gays, and anybody sufficiently "radical" by the standards of cold war America.
Ronald Reagan also has buildings named after him, mind you.
And this doesn't come up in every single news article about the FBI? This doesn't come up to discredit every single piece of FBI evidence in court?
I would believe that kind of thing about the Soviet Union. Or some other dictatorship. And this is happening, right now, in the USA, largely ignored by media, by politicians, by courts, with massive BLM protests, you say?
>Many Americans do hate him.
Many Americans believe the world is flat. Tragically what "Many Americans" believe means nothing about credibility.
No. What I said was that Hoover was a criminal, and that his reign at the FBI was marked by illegality. Whether or not the present FBI is a criminal organization is a separate claim that I'm not going to make right now.
> And this doesn't come up in every single news article about the FBI? This doesn't come up to discredit every single piece of FBI evidence in court?
It's an established fact about the FBI, the same way that the Tuskegee Experiment is an established fact about the CDC. Both agencies (claim to) have reformed, so there's nothing to "bring up" in court.
The fact that you don't personally know about it doesn't mean it's ignored. It's taught in US high schools as a critical part of America's cold war hysteria as well as the federal government's reaction to the civil rights movement.
> Tragically what "Many Americans" believe means nothing about credibility.
You asked specifically whether Americans hold Hoover in contempt, not for the factual content of their beliefs. I think that they're right to hate him, but the base factuality of their beliefs doesn't change the fact that his public image is negative.
Lets be serious here, the FBI continues to be a criminal organization like many other three letters: due to a top down compromise system... but why do I even bother with someone who has already slyly tried to dismiss the topic as surely a conspiracy theory (the implication being all conspiracy theories are false and/or batshit crazy). If your bias and immovable opinion weren't so obvious I might tell you more about things like the mafias (including Trumps mentor, Roy Cohn) part in the Hoover compromise, and other things.
edit: I got wooshed... https://youtu.be/QKVS8TMork4?t=23
The parent is clearly lampooning this perspective, not advancing it unironically. But I can kind of understand mistaking it for the real thing, the insistence on denying the possibility of conspiracies has reached some pretty serious Poe's Law proportions.
The incredulity is 100% genuine. Just seeing how everyone reacts looking at and seeing how absolutely fucking insane it is to have the FBI and their powers in a building named "J Edgar Hoover"
Someone said the fbi reformed since those days of criminality. Why would anyone believe that while they continue to celebrate J Edgar Hoover. While they go to work to protect the rule of law to a building named J. Edgar Hoover. Why would any judge take the word of any FBI agent when they've covered up criminal behaviour, and performed it and lied about it instead of arresting J. Edgar Hoover the first second they became aware of what he was?
They said they weren't criminals when Hoover was in charge. They lied. They continue to exult Hoover while claiming they aren't criminals anymore. Who actually isn't feeling sick at the idea of believing that? Hoover is the biggest FBI hero. A vicious criminal thug running the FBI as a criminal conspiracy is the FBI's biggest hero. Says so right there on their HQ.
It's something that's impossible to get your head around. 30 years ago. No sign of it changing?
The FBI flagrantly advertise their lack of respect for the rule of law. That's on all of us.
It is who and what the FBI are! Take them at their word when they tell us this! It's so much worse than any symbol. They are out there doing their J Edgar Hoover thing with the force of law behind them! And rubbing our noses in it.
Harry S Truman wrote during his presidency: "We want no Gestapo or secret police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail
He was a villain by any reasonable accounting whose exploits are at this point well known and his moral deviance, bigotry, hatefulness, contempt not so much merely for the letter of the law as for its spirit and purpose. A contempt for justice as it might be understood by anyone other than a straight, white, conservative, republican, man that ultimately overshadows his accomplishments.
I get this is supposed to be a debate, but the FBI never rolled tanks into Poland or Czechoslovakia. The FBI never annexed the peninsula of a foreign country, then set up fraud elections to make it look organic.
Most importantly, the US largely ended it's support of anti-democratic forces post-cold war. The KGB has no such intention.
Except in Venezuela, Bolivia, the Middle East...
Specifically voiced support for the pro-democratic opposition leader that arguably won the election.
> the Middle East
Supported democratic reforms in Egypt against a long time pro-US dictator in Mubarak. Supported Syria's right to self-determination to the point of fighting with FSA for years.
> Bolivia
Bolivia is an interesting case, the opposition claimed fraud but i've seen no evidence of it. A black eye for sure to come down against the results of their election without proof.
Processed into intelligence it was not. The video from the helicopter strike was technically processed, but by no stretch of the imagination was it intelligence that an American airstrikes hit two journalists and family with young children.
Out of the leaks listed on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Leaks), how many of those can honestly be classified as processed intelligence by a hostile power, under the guise of an ideology of totally free data?
Thus the attempts to nail Assange for conspiracy, something that is self-evident nonsense given the Adrian Lamo chat logs published by Wired show Manning contacting Assange with express intent to leak.
If there were equal amounts of dirt on every politician, then fine, but there is clearly not. This is what bothers me about the whole thing. It can be manipulated by powerful states, and some of them are more willing to use it than others.
It's a complicated balance act. You want to hold "your" party accountable, and the scale is not "better than the others". At the same time, you don't want to diminish the difference, by just talking about your side's problems. A "we publish everything we get" policy is then not necessarily balanced, if one party plays this game, and the other doesn't.
How do you know that wikileaks is trustworthy? Answer please.
If we are talking about the 2016 election then there is actually data on how much dirt was being thrown around. Looking at all the scandals being printed in news papers, with the big ones being the email scandals for Clinton and audio tapes for trump, the data as presented in a research paper was that the intensity of scandal articles was higher for Trump, but the duration of articles was higher for Clinton. Trump scandals got focused in the news during the last month of the election, while the Clinton scandals had been published on and off for almost a half year. In total, articles writing about scandals was around 3-4 times more in total for Clinton and distributed over a half year, than those of trump which was distributed over the last month of the election.
The general conclusion I got from that research is that dirt that can be dripped over a long period has a better chance to stick than a louder but shorter lived dirt. It also makes comparing one kind of dirt to an other difficult. This lesson seems to have been taken in by heart in the Snowden leaks and panamaleaks, both which stretched out their leaks for months.
Why "a blind eye"? An open eye. Wikileaks has no loyalty to the US government, and it isn't, nor should it be, a concern of theirs whether elements hostile to the US benefit or not from its publications. Wikileaks publishes information of public interest, and that's that.
Also, note that Wikileaks has published information about regimes the US perceives as hostile, e.g. Russia:
I said "liberal democracy," not "US government agencies." I also don't think the information itself is suspect. Please read the surrounding (very good) discussion around the difference between information and intelligence.
So, how does exposing high-level corruption, war crimes, mass surveillance, etc. lead to a 'decline of liberal democracy'? Unless you mean 'exposing the ways in which our society is not a liberal democracy leads to the decline of the illusion of liberal democracy'?
It used to be that Democracy meant that you could read any official document to make sure your government wasn't acting out. Intelligence agencies were a compromise on that, with the idea that at least if there was a disaster someone would speak out. Now even that is under threat?
The only long term vision that is compatible with this is the decline of democracy, liberal or not.
Wait, think tanks, all political pundits, every newspaper with an opinion column, and everyone reading Hacker News processes information into intelligence. Who can't be targeted under this definition of a non-state intelligence agency?
-Lavrentiy Beria
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed...
They made extremely clear, however, that they thought a Clinton victory in 2016 would be dangerous for the world, while a Trump victory would reign in the worst tendencies of liberal leadership.
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks...
Smears unleashed in the last week of the campaign are a bit below the belt. Doubt that is ever going to stop anyone though.
Also not to be a whataboutist (I didn't have a horse in the race), but plenty of other dirt was released on other candidates in the run-up to the election, and I didn't see the Clinton campaign condemning the timing of its release...
Not bad press. The stolen materials of a state-sponsored attack released at the precise time it would do the most damage. And people are claiming with a straight face this was a coincidence and Wikileaks wasn't working with Russian intelligence, against the American democratic party.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-cl...
I'd take anything the New York Times's "reports" on political/etc with a grain of salt.
Also, I'm of the opinion that all news/media organizations are propaganda organizations. But so what? Let these propagandists fight to expose each other rather than colluding together to mislead the public by serving the same state.
So going after #2 sounds even more silly than going after #1.
As for the epithet "Dark", that's just empty rhetorical embellishment.
Isn't that the same strategy that countries like Iran, Russia, and China have against their whistleblowers? And isn't that the exact behavior that we always blame and condemn? We have human rights sanctions against Iran for punishing journalists.
We can't have a discussion if basic we can't get basic things right. Snowden isn't a whistleblower. He leaked stolen materials then fled to a hostile country.
Multiple IC whistleblowers were allowed to testify against the President in the last 4 years, all without punitive punishment (although the Trump's tried). Snowden could have chosen a different path. His impressive control of his own narrative seems to have most of this community fooled.
The CIA are known to be professional bad-faith liers (eg, [0]). It is quite possible they are lieing for political purposes. Their opinion on Wikileaks is not remotely authoritative.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies#Cove...
Yes, which makes them an opposition intelligence organization. Like I said.
I love this argument as it turns both Larry King and Jesse Ventura into Kremlin agents.
This argument is ridiculous. If there was any actual evidence he was a Kremlin agent, why would they currently be using the flimsy hacking charges to extradite him?
> If there was any actual evidence he was a Kremlin agent
"why don't spy agencies burn sources and methods to charge Assange with espionage when he's already in prison for other charges?" That's really not how it works.
>why don't spy agencies burn sources and methods to charge Assange with espionage when he's already in prison for other charges?
We already know that all of his communication in the Ecuadorian embassy were tapped for years, what are they protecting?
Trying desperately to turn emails (that amounted mostly to dirty laundry) stolen by a government into manufactured scandals and conspiracies the day after the worst revelations about Russia's preferred candidate dropped was not, and is not, journalism. How on earth can you get something so basic wrong?
> We already know that all of his communication in the Ecuadorian embassy were tapped for years, what are they protecting?
Nice little straw man there. We are talking about Assange's official relationship with Russian military intelligence years before he hid in the Ecuadorian embassy. The proof of said relationship, if made public, reveals how Russia was monitored/caught and helps them conceal their future efforts at recruiting assets.
Which is why the "if you have proof why not make it public?" argument in relation to espionage is and always will be a bad faith argument. Snowden did it too. He knows damn well everything he says will go unchallenged, and he uses that silence to his rhetorical advantage.
But you knew all that already.
Nothing you said has any connection to whether it's journalism. He received and published politically relevant information.
>We are talking about Assange's official relationship with Russian military intelligence years before he hid in the Ecuadorian embassy
So based on something he did in 2016, you think that's proof he was a Russian agent from the mid 2000's that the US intelligence agencies just let do whatever he wanted for years. I do not understand that point of view.
> always will be a bad faith argument
The need for intelligence agencies to keep their information secret is not more important than the accused's right to a fair trial.
I also don't have any clue what you think I knew already. I have seen no evidence that Assange or Snowden are foreign agents.
> So based on something he did in 2016
Speculation no one can answer, ignored.
> The need for intelligence agencies to keep their information secret is not more important than the accused's right to a fair trial.
You aren't listening to what i'm saying. If you suspect someone of espionage and they are already sitting in prison of sex crime charges, you have no reason to expose the methods and sources you used to catch said person.
And responding to any claim made exposes you publicly to confirm what you know and how you know it, which further damages your intelligence collection efforts. Which is why "show me the evidence" is not in good faith, especially not someone like Snoweden that knows damn well how intelligence works. He knows he won't get push back publicly, so he has complete ownership of the narrative. "None of my leaks results in anyone dying". The American IC is not going to list their assets that were executed in hostile countries as a result, for the reasons I mentioned.
> accused's right to a fair trial
Funny, both Assange and Snowden fled their respective "fair trails" to hide from justice. Neither had any intention of risking jail for "what they believe in" - yet some people still view them alongside whistleblowers that actually did.
As I don't consider Assange to be a Russian agent, I don't have any issues with them receiving state-hacked information. They are under no obligation to determine the source's motive. And they are free to coordinate with a political campaign, they have the freedom of assembly as well as of the press.
The Roger Stone indictment was for obstruction of an official proceeding, false statements, and witness tampering. His discussions about Wikileaks weren't illegal, lying about them was.
>Speculation no one can answer, ignored.
What? You're the one claiming the DNC leaks prove they are a Russian agent. I don't agree, but I understand that argument. Then stretching it to include "Assange's official relationship with Russian military intelligence years before he hid in the Ecuadorian embassy" makes no sense to me.
>. If you suspect someone of espionage and they are already sitting in prison of sex crime charges, you have no reason to expose the methods and sources you used to catch said person.
I am listening to what you are saying, selective enforcement of laws absolutely violates your right to a fair trial. Without exposing their methods, we have no idea of those methods were constitutionally sound. They may not have any reason that benefits themselves, but I don't care.
Further, Snowden isn't behind bars. Why didn't they expose their methods and prevent him leaving Hong Kong rather than block his passport while layovered in Russia?
>Funny, both Assange and Snowden fled their respective "fair trails" to hide from justice.
As Assange's extradition hearing and the numerous whistleblower trials over the past fifty years have shown, they had no expectation of a fair trial. Quoting Daniel Ellsberg about his case
>(my) lawyer, exasperated, said he 'had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did.' The judge responded: 'Well, you're hearing one now'. And so it has been with every subsequent whistleblower under indictment.
lol. "None of these things are crimes" is not the solid argument you think it is. To be a useful idiot aiding an autocratic government in their intelligence operations might not be technically illegal, but you give up all pretense of being "journalists" when you do so.
> His discussions about Wikileaks weren't illegal
Again, not what we are talking about. I'll take your constant efforts to move the goal posts from what constitutes journalism to what constitutes a crime as a tacit admission you don't have a leg to stand on.
> Daniel Ellsberg
A famous leaker is pro-leaker, what a shocking revelation. Difference is all of the pentagon papers were relevant to the ongoing crime of the Vietnam War. 95% of what Snowden leaked had nothing to do with domestic surveillance. Funny how that's never mentioned.
Also, maybe listen to people that actually know what they're talking about in 2020. Here's a lawyer that specializes in representing intel officers in whistleblower cases, talking about how Snowden did have options, and it's a lie to say otherwise.
https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status/1339383062120062978
He chose to run, he chose to avoid the consequences of his actions. And in more simple terms, a whistleblower is a legal term for something he chose not to be. He leaked, then ran away. Calling him a whistleblower is an insult to the brave people that actually did seek whistleblower protection in serious matters and were willing to testify and face the consequences.
I do not have any idea what you consider to be journalism. Why would being a useful idiot make publishing politically relevant information eliminate your pretense of being a "journalist?"
>Again, not what we are talking about.
Then explain how Stone's indictment for spying is in anyway relevant to our discussion? I assumed you brought it up to claim Assange's actions were illegal, making prosecuting his actions not violate his freedom of the press. You just wanted to show he was in contact with GOP leaders?
>famous leaker is pro-leaker, what a shocking revelation
The relevant part was a judge saying he couldn't explain his actions. Assange's case was similarly run. They had no hope of a fair trial.
I had not heard of Zaid, my research pulled up this exchange he had though
>What result could Snowden have expected had he covered the bases and his butt by approaching an inspector general’s office or congressional committees?
And replied
>“Candidly,” Zaid said, “he likely would have been frustrated immensely with the lack of results from either, given the current posture.”
Though he's a vocal critic of Snowden, even he found it unlikely that the "proper channels" would have netted results.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/o...
And on the subject of moving goal posts, why have you changed from trying to show them as Russian agents to not journalists/whistleblowers?
Not being part of an information warfare campaign of an autocratic country's intelligence service, as we have definitive proof Wikileaks was. The fact that you keep saying this is fine and totally par for the course (also weirdly repeating that the DNC's personal correspondence about ordering pizza and shit-talking each other is 'politically relevant') makes me think you are either far too partisan in your admiration of Assange to discuss this objectively or you just don't understand what the journalism industry is. I don't really care which is true at this point.
You are also misrepresenting what Zaid has said, repeatedly. Being a whistleblower is not an easy thing and not without consequences, but Snowden didn't even attempt to become one. Which is why referring to him as such is misleading at best, and cynically misrepresenting what happened for ideological reasons at worst.
So because a foreign intelligence group took advantage of a "useful idiot" they aren't journalists? Their actions don't matter? Do you feel the same towards writers being used by the CIA to spread their stories?
I fully admit that some editing of the leaks would have been preferred, but I can also see how that would be difficult in their position and it would be used to cast further doubt upon them. Publishing them as is still qualifies as journalism.
Oh, and I personally find Assange to be an abhorrent person. He's egotistical, racist, and much of those sexual assault claims seem likely. His right to a free press still should not be trampled.
>You are also misrepresenting what Zaid has said, repeatedly.
By directly quoting him while providing the context? Maybe he's right and some set of actions could have put Snowden in a better position today. As things stand, Snowden would not receive a fair trial, as Assange is not.
As per the previous question, it appears you don't understand what journalism is. Journalists report stories as objectively as possible, they don't play an active and knowing role in foreign intelligence operations. Surely the NYT and WaPo have played roles in furthering propaganda before (Iraq War), but they weren't co-conspirators. And it wasn't a foreign spy agency feeding them stolen materials to leak for destructive purposes. Big difference(s).
IF Wikileaks actually were journalists, they'd have a hell of a story to write about how their bipolar manic founder had been coopted by an autocratic intelligence agency to do their bidding, throwing away years of good work to actually expose the bad behavior of criminal governments.
I'd read that story.
> As things stand, Snowden would not receive a fair trial, as Assange is not.
Yeah that's not what he said. He said Snowden would face the full wrath of the US Gov (true) but that he's been able to protect others (in the last year even) that had the same pressures. The idea that Snowden "had no choice" is a ridiculous myth believed only by those who see him as a hero first (as part of their general world view), then figure out the facts of the matter later on.
Let's recap the evidence you have provided showing he played a "active and knowing role." First, that his show aired on RT. Second, that Wikileaks published the information they received. That is not a convincing argument.
If further evidence did emerge clearly showing Assange knowingly and actively assisting Russia, my position on the legality of his actions may change, and punishing him would not violate his rights.
>And it wasn't a foreign spy agency feeding them stolen materials to leak for destructive purposes
No, but many of the CIA's worldwide operations are exactly that. Plus, I don't find a domestic spy agency feeding them stolen materials for destructive purposes much better.
>Yeah that's not what he said
Those are my words, based on similar trials I have mentioned. He may have had other choices, at this point he would not receive a fair trial. Zaid already believes he deserves the punishment, like you do, so you both seem unconcerned about whether his trial would be fair.
I'm done with this bad faith nonsense, i've addressed the multiple people trying to shift the conversation away from what I said towards RT.
Assange, the guy that promised us all he would "open governments" takes his orders from a murderous KGB thug.
And he has no end of people still willing to make excuses for him (that's you).
Not just Pompeo and the CIA, the mainstream news industry.
Also, there is the distinct possibility that it could be compromised by agencies of other states.
I don't think either of those narratives are quite on the mark.
Maybe we'll eventually find out.
However, the processing of Information into Intelligence that can be acted upon is what characterizes Intelligence agencies. Wikileaks does not concern itself with this phase. Yet, the CIA’s Pompeo is trying to paint a narrative that Wikileaks is doing this by labeling them a “non-state intelligence agency”, thereby justifying the CIA’s actions to attack Wikileaks.
In brief:
Narrative #1 - the CIA attacking an “Idealistic Free Information Publisher”.
Narrative #2 - the CIA attacking a “Non-state Dark Intelligence Agency”
The CIA is actively trying to create Narrative #2, which is a bit concerning.