I would not paint Julian Assange (or Chelsea Manning) as a blameless hero like Edward Snowden. But sometimes people do reprehensible things that are not (or ought not be) against the law.
The primary objection against Julian Assange appears to be that he published true information that others (like the US Government and the Hillary Clinton campaign) did not want released. The US Government wants to extradite him because Chelsea Manning asked him to help crack a password and he allegedly said "yes" but never did assist in cracking it. I don't want to debate whether that IS a crime under US law, but certainly I will claim that it SHOULDN'T be.
Yes, Atlantic - Julian Assange is not a nice person. And the Equadorian government had excellent motivation to withdraw the protection of their embassy. But no, Atlantic, that does not mean he deserves to be extradited and stand trial in the US.
> (or Chelsea Manning) as a blameless hero like Edward Snowden.
Well, let's see, one of them went to Russia, the other didn't. Who is closer to being "blameless"? And I thought that collusion with Russia is something that people are somewhat concerned about, lately.
Also, why are you saying that Assange never made any attempt to crack that password? Why then would he ever want to actively mislead Manning by suggesting otherwise? That's a really fanciful scenario.
I agree. Early on, I thought Assange was a bit of a hero. He provided a forum for people to reveal things that shouldn't be happening and shouldn't be secret. I understand the need for government secrecy, spying, and surveillance. I don't accept that it's ok for governments to break their own laws to spy on their own citizens without warrants or just cause, however.
Assange wasn't simply doing this as a neutral party, however. He was playing the same underhanded games as the governments. He was actively timing the release of information and selectively revealing or withholding information to suit his own political agenda.
I'd grown disenchanted with him well before the 2016 election, but that revealed his hypocritical motivations in all their glory. He worked with the despotic Russian regime and went on a personal attack against Hillary Clinton, timing the release (and non-release) of information to intentionally disrupt the presidential election.
Assange long ago became just another of the underhanded villains he claimed to be fighting against.
> I understand the need for government secrecy, spying, and surveillance
There is a place for all these things; but there is distinction between things we know the government has that are not disclosed (eg, the US government has a plan to invade Canada if a crisis warrants it. They might reasonably keep the actual content of the plan secret) vs. secret schemes (it is unknowable what precedent the FISA court has created).
There is a big difference between the two. The first case can be reasonably handled by the democratic process. The second case cannot, and is incompatible with an accountable democracy. People who work against these anti-democratic secrets deserve support even if they are hypocrites; all I ask is that they are effective.
> He worked with the despotic Russian regime...
I find it conspicuous that there is nobody claiming the information in the leaks was false. If the revealing honest thoughts and intentions to the voting public is the scandal (and not the thoughts and intentions themselves) then I don't see why it would influence an election.
If an untimely revelation of facts scuppers the cause, then the cause is not robust and that is the big problem.
Exactly my opinion as well. Some information should be kept secret but it's also good to give people a transparent and unbiased outlet to leak if they have no other options. As soon as he and WikiLeaks showed they had an agenda their integrity went out the window.
Hot take: The organization has always had an agenda. All the big leaks were things that painted the U.S. in a negative light. Just the title of Collateral Murder reads like a Fox News tagline for maximum effect.
I felt similarly early on. To the authors point, he's always said some very off the wall things and is very extreme in many of his beliefs. I wonder if he was planning on using any power/influence he got for his own agenda the whole time, or if the power got to him. He doesn't look or seem very mentally healthy, maybe there's something there too
That there is common-people support for the US position at all feels truly crazy-town to me.
Those who support the US on this, should in principle also support extradition of blasphemers to Pakistan, or anti-government protesters to China, from anywhere in the world. If you disagree with that, I would love to hear your perspective: please do articulate a principle of extradition that would include Assange and exclude a blasphemer against Allah.
(Just, as a head-start hint, "I think Assange is a terrible person, therefore he should be extradited" is not a principled perspective.)
That the mainstream US media inexplicably supports the US government's position should alarm you. Yes, you, reading this. As above, I would love to hear an articulated principle that cleaves Wikileaks from the wider community of news media, that also does not allow for the arrest and prosecution of any of the journalists who actually covered what Wikileaks wrote.
Establishment media thinks julian assange got what he deserved? How shocking. When will the atlantic and the establishment media get what they deserve? How many illegal wars have they pushed? When are they going to end up in jail?
Yea, this smells like a coordinated hit piece to erode any public support before trial. I expect we will hear much more about what a terrible person he is on a regular cadence now.
The headline is somewhat tautologically true in the technical sense that, with Ecuador, the UK, and the US each having an effective veto over legal action against him, and all three being democratic countries with the rule of law largely intact, whatever will come of this will tend to be the just consequences of his actions that got too close and/or crossed the line of legality.
Ever since Assange first got into trouble over violating a well-meaning hosts‘ house rules of hygiene (a perennial problem of his, apparently) there have been accusations and conspiracy theories conflating the criminal and political aspects. One should try to avoid this.
[+] [-] mcherm|7 years ago|reply
The primary objection against Julian Assange appears to be that he published true information that others (like the US Government and the Hillary Clinton campaign) did not want released. The US Government wants to extradite him because Chelsea Manning asked him to help crack a password and he allegedly said "yes" but never did assist in cracking it. I don't want to debate whether that IS a crime under US law, but certainly I will claim that it SHOULDN'T be.
Yes, Atlantic - Julian Assange is not a nice person. And the Equadorian government had excellent motivation to withdraw the protection of their embassy. But no, Atlantic, that does not mean he deserves to be extradited and stand trial in the US.
[+] [-] kpU8efre7r|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0815test|7 years ago|reply
Well, let's see, one of them went to Russia, the other didn't. Who is closer to being "blameless"? And I thought that collusion with Russia is something that people are somewhat concerned about, lately.
Also, why are you saying that Assange never made any attempt to crack that password? Why then would he ever want to actively mislead Manning by suggesting otherwise? That's a really fanciful scenario.
[+] [-] caymanjim|7 years ago|reply
Assange wasn't simply doing this as a neutral party, however. He was playing the same underhanded games as the governments. He was actively timing the release of information and selectively revealing or withholding information to suit his own political agenda.
I'd grown disenchanted with him well before the 2016 election, but that revealed his hypocritical motivations in all their glory. He worked with the despotic Russian regime and went on a personal attack against Hillary Clinton, timing the release (and non-release) of information to intentionally disrupt the presidential election.
Assange long ago became just another of the underhanded villains he claimed to be fighting against.
[+] [-] roenxi|7 years ago|reply
There is a place for all these things; but there is distinction between things we know the government has that are not disclosed (eg, the US government has a plan to invade Canada if a crisis warrants it. They might reasonably keep the actual content of the plan secret) vs. secret schemes (it is unknowable what precedent the FISA court has created).
There is a big difference between the two. The first case can be reasonably handled by the democratic process. The second case cannot, and is incompatible with an accountable democracy. People who work against these anti-democratic secrets deserve support even if they are hypocrites; all I ask is that they are effective.
> He worked with the despotic Russian regime...
I find it conspicuous that there is nobody claiming the information in the leaks was false. If the revealing honest thoughts and intentions to the voting public is the scandal (and not the thoughts and intentions themselves) then I don't see why it would influence an election.
If an untimely revelation of facts scuppers the cause, then the cause is not robust and that is the big problem.
[+] [-] kpU8efre7r|7 years ago|reply
Hot take: The organization has always had an agenda. All the big leaks were things that painted the U.S. in a negative light. Just the title of Collateral Murder reads like a Fox News tagline for maximum effect.
[+] [-] Elof|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tinus_hn|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] norswap|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rendall|7 years ago|reply
Those who support the US on this, should in principle also support extradition of blasphemers to Pakistan, or anti-government protesters to China, from anywhere in the world. If you disagree with that, I would love to hear your perspective: please do articulate a principle of extradition that would include Assange and exclude a blasphemer against Allah.
(Just, as a head-start hint, "I think Assange is a terrible person, therefore he should be extradited" is not a principled perspective.)
That the mainstream US media inexplicably supports the US government's position should alarm you. Yes, you, reading this. As above, I would love to hear an articulated principle that cleaves Wikileaks from the wider community of news media, that also does not allow for the arrest and prosecution of any of the journalists who actually covered what Wikileaks wrote.
[+] [-] ThrowawayR2|7 years ago|reply
A rather poor choice of examples, I'd say.
Extradition for blasphemy from the United States runs afoul of the dual criminality requirement. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_criminality)
The US also has no extradition treaty with China. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...)
[+] [-] rinchik|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] detaro|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrwwy192783|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stmfreak|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ycomanon|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] matt4077|7 years ago|reply
Ever since Assange first got into trouble over violating a well-meaning hosts‘ house rules of hygiene (a perennial problem of his, apparently) there have been accusations and conspiracy theories conflating the criminal and political aspects. One should try to avoid this.