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).
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.