There is an important missing detail. The Swedes agreed to interview Assange about the rape allegations in London but the British Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) put pressure on the Swedes not to. The CPS deleted the emails they sent to the Swedes and we only know of their existence because of a FOI request on the Swedish side. Why were the supposedly politically independent CPS so keen to get Assange extradited to Sweden? FWIW, the CPS was led at the time by Keir Starmer, current leader of the opposition.
The entire "had sex with a broken condom" saga is ridiculous and built up to be an Assange smear campaign. Neither women went to the police to report a rape, they only wanted him to get tested for STDs, neither wanted charges pressed against Assange, and they both later retracted their stories.
If Assange did what was alleged, then that's awful and horrible and abusive and those women are victims. However the entirety of the reporting around this is wildly biased and dishonest and clearly manufactured to get him extradited, which worked.
What a sorry, shameful saga. I found this story linked to on rms' home page:
> Our next rally for Julian Assange is Saturday, March 4 at 11:30 to 12:30pm. We will gather at Park St. Station on the Boston Common to speak out for Assange and gather signatures on our petition to our senators.
(See how the media failed Julian Assange at Harper's Magazine.)
There's authoritarianism, where government knows what's best for everyone and keeps secrets to "protect" its citizens. Then there's democracy, where the government is open and honest so the people can make informed decisions on how best to run their government.
In my opinion, one of the best ways of identifying an authoritarian is to ask them their opinions on Snowden or Assange.
> one of the best ways of identifying an authoritarian is to ask them their opinions on Snowden or Assange
These are complex situations. If you’re basing your binary judgement of an even-more complex political spectrum (it isn’t really a spectrum) on these cases, your model is mis-tuned. I’m sure, for example, Putin would find both exemplary figures. That doesn’t make him a Solon.
>In my opinion, one of the best ways of identifying an authoritarian is to ask them their opinions on Snowden or Assange.
As far as Assange goes I think he is a liar.
The primary piece of evidence I use to support this is that he claims that his media firm, Sunshine Press was a non-profit when its documents of incorporation list it as a private limited company.
A second piece of evidence is that the original release of Collateral Murder was edited to remove the armed men accompanying the journalists who were killed and the unedited version was only released after public outcry. The presence of armed men escorting the journalists may have been used to justify the attack, which occurred just a couple hundred meters from an active firefight, so the context was deleted in the initial release.
A third piece of evidence is that Assange lied to John Young, a highly-respected member of the "leaking" community to get him to register the original Wikileaks domain waaaay back in the day and then the Wikileaks community turned on John when he dared speak out.
Finally, a fourth piece of evidence is that they used Wau Holland (Chaos Computer Club) as an initial fundraising arm to funnel money to Sunshine Press, and Wau Holland promised an audit of the substantial sums of money being directed to Sunshine Press, but they only ended up publishing three bare-bones "transparency reports" after millions had been spent and their tax-free status had been revoked for funding a for-profit enterprise. Once it became impossible to funnel donations tax-free to the for-profit business through Wau Holland donations slowed, communications stopped, and the association between the two ended. Please note that none of the banking shenanigans going on at the time impacted Wau Holland.
It's pretty clear what happened. People started to view the reporting of Wikileaks as evil or fake as soon as it negatively impacted $theirpoliticalside. Once these perceptions fell into place it was easy to disregard all the good, villify him personally, and ignore the authoritarian and illegal actions taken against him.
From the start, wikileaks was a partisan project masquerading as a righteous cause. Those of us old enough to remember their original releases (like “Collateral Murder”) remember that wikileaks was always about building a narrative rather than exposing the truth.
Suggesting that people started thinking negatively about wikileaks once it came for “their side” is painfully revisionist. Many people believe wikileaks is a net good but despise Assange. Assange failed wikileaks, the media did not fail Assange.
My pet theory is that the true effect of "cancel culture" isn't really on rich/popular people. But the public cancelling means on an individual level social groups eventually become homogeneous in their views.
The result is you must eject any idea, person or news source which doesn't 100% align with the current group values.
The outcome is that entities which don't take sides are the real victims of cancel culture. Why is does CNN always come to the same conclusions and cover the same things? Why does Fox? It's because if they stray they are goners.
WikiLeaks was truly neutral dumping all info it got. That was in no one's interest other than the diminishing open minded groups.
A similar thing happened when Alexander Solzhenitsyn defected to the US from the USSR. As long as he was blasting the Soviets everybody listened, but when he started critiquing the US as well…his speaking invitations dried up.
It's really this simple. Shows that it was never about the fact that he provided information but about the fact that he provided information that could be used by $mypoliticalside.
I don't really think you can lay the blame here on people or perceptions and I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion from the article. He was targeted by people in power and they laid an effective smoke screen and got rid of him.
I thought the disillusionment around here with wikileaks had more to do with the way they had changed from careful curation, removing the personal information of those not involved, to just bulk dumps. Less that Hillary's emails were leaked and more that the personal information of lesser figures in and donors to the DNC were also released in mass. They had changed in perception from journalism to personal revenge against Hillary for her pursuing Assange as Secretary of State. The fact that the RNC had been hacked but emails not released helped in this perception...
There was no need for villification. For whatever good Wikileaks did for "the truth" or people's curiousity, it was a danger to US troops and their allies from the first moments.
That's got nothing to do with political views. And the charges against him are still perfectly legal. An "authoritarian" system would go about this completely differently.
WikiLeaks arguably helped people to do that quite effectively. They've never really claimed to be neutral but especially around 2016 they were either getting played by or explicitly choosing to aid the trump campaign via the Russian state (at best as a messenger). III.B.3 of the Mueller report
I don't know if they are evil but I find it very hard to view them as anything other than selectively truthful at best.
It was well before the Trump election. Colbert told him that the authorities would come after him in his 2007 appearance on the Colbert Report.
The minute he published Collateral Murder, a video maximizing publicity on a fatal error in America's war effort, that was it for Assange and Wikileaks.
Is it really a mystery why people turned on assange?
In his later years his work became similar to that of breitbart, James okeef, and tucker Carlson. Regardless of what one thinks of those, There’s no question that their publications and intentions are extremely slanted.
There are some signs new Australian PM Albanese has been quietly working to secure the release of Assange, but he is now a broken man after a decade of effective imprisonment and the last few years of torture. The deterrent effect against any would-be whistleblowers has been achieved.
Framing this as they do continues to “fail” him! It wasn’t bad journalism that “failed” Assange, it was a concerted effort to assassinate his character and distract from his reporting.
Julian Assange has not been charged with exposing secrets or being inconvenient for the powers that be. He has been charged on the quite plausible accusation of helping Chelsea Manning illegally acquire these secrets. There are lines journalists (and you can debate if he is a journalist) are not supposed to cross, this is one of them.
Most of the negative consequences in his life stem from him running from this accusation, and from the rape charges in Sweden. He'd like to frame it in a different light, understandably...
The timeline is actually a bit different. The US espionage charges came into the light after Ecuador revoked his asylum and Assange was arrested by the UK police. He was hiding on the suspicion that Sweden would extradite him to the US and everyone made fun of him and called him paranoid for 7 years.
Oh come the heck on, it’s a standard British Category A prison. Any comparison to Gitmo are prima facie ludicrous and makes the rest of the article suspect
"Between 2001 and 2002, Belmarsh Prison was used to detain a number of people indefinitely without charge or trial under the provisions of the Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, leading it to be called the "British version of Guantanamo Bay"."
The efforts to discredit Assange are a primary example of a successful smear campaign. It's not surprising that people are gullible to make such campaigns easy, character assassination always works when large government agencies are behind it for many years. I was actually surprised how long it took.
Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. They are fair targets for criticism, and it's genuinely ok for someone to draw the conclusion that, "given the criticism, I cannot support them".
Yes, a deliberate smear campaign exists, but also these are institutions with complex histories. You cannot simply call anyone critical of them "gullible".
The media did not fail Assange, failure is unintentional. The media actively colluded with interested parties in order to smear him, because he created a problem for them.
The era of alternative facts were kind of started with Julian Assange. The video "Collateral Murder" was heavily edited by Mr. Assange. It was damning enough without his edits, he didn't need to add his personal soundtrack and audio edits to the video. How Mr. Assange has become the poster boy of "leakers against the government" with his outrageous egotistical and dickish behavior is beyond me. Leakers should give "the facts" and "the truth" untarnished and free of modification.
Do you believe it’s acceptable to revoke journalist’s protection for the reasons you’ve listed and jail them for the reasons you’ve listed?
Are there any journalists you might agree with, that don’t share any of the traits of your rant, that are going to suffer downstream from you being okay with revoking journalistic protections on these conditions?
You, like so many, are focusing on the ad hominem rather than the merits of the evidence and exposure. Why are we talking so much about Assange being in jail or not instead of those the information implicates?
It's not who the media failed, but who the media protected.
It's the same page from the same playbook...repeat X enough times - regardless of accuracy - and perception becomes reality.
Nearly every major news organization practices this, shamelessly. It's a biz model based on eye-ball not journalism standards. It's a biz model that protects the few and the expense of properly informing the many.
The impact Assange and Wikileaks have had in exposing nefarious government secrets shouldn’t be forgotten. But, the damage that they’ve suffered to their reputation is entirely deserved. I don’t believe for a second that they didn’t know what they were doing when they partnered with Russia in 2016 to help draw as much attention as possible to the DNC emails—that is, engaging in an asymmetric political operation. That’s confirmed by the way they released the information—spaced out for maximum effect right up until the election. At that point, any claim they had on being simply a force for transparency was given up.
To be fair to WikiLeaks there is very little evidence that Russia had anything to do with the DNC hacks. The FBI never had access to the servers and the the whole Russia hacking narrative relies on the DNC's claim of "trust us when we said this is what happened".
Similarly the recent Twitter revelations on Hamilton68 showed that the Russian bots on manipulating social media was more or less BS.
Who know what really happened, but what may have happened was that the hacking was blamed on Russia instead of say China, or [insert foreign adversary] because the FBI panicked when trump was elected after using the Steele dossier to spy on his campaign and needed a narrative to justify their actions.
Yeah, they have numerous exposed war crimes, cover ups and mass surveillance schemes. Which inherently meant that they took their info wherever they could get it from. But that's not enough to make up for harming the candidate you were backing in an election 7 years ago. They could've made sure to not embarass our side, that's the redline where they got too political!
> I don’t believe for a second that they didn’t know what they were doing when they partnered with Russia in 2016 to help draw as much attention as possible to the DNC emails
I don't know why you would talk like this. This is just a big lie wrapped in a sarcastic and condescending tone substituting for evidence. What you believe is not interesting to people, they care why you believe it because you may have an argument they haven't thought of.
The only thing that you're explaining to us is that you accept every anti-Assange argument proffered by the Democratic Party, and that the fact that the release was damaging is enough information to "confirm" for you that they are all true. If the release weren't damaging, there'd be no reason to talk about it, therefore you're citing the reasons you're having a discussion of Assange's guilt as evidence of Assange's guilt. It's weaker than circumstantial, even; you've simply decided that the DNC emails were released optimally for mysterious Russian interests, and are making a secular intelligent design argument.
I can't be read as anything but a public statement that you'll accept any charge against anyone accused of damaging your party, and over the subject of the safety of a journalist exposing government corruption no less. The scariest part of the whole thing is that the DNC emails exposed corruption. We should be celebrating their release because they exposed as true what was only suspected before. The Democratic Party fired people over it. But the current zeitgeist is about suppressing information from enemies and boosting information from friends, and Assange is a designated enemy. If the Democratic Party weren't so horrifically undemocratic internally, it would be celebrating the exposure of corruption in its own ranks, but instead it mourns the financial losses of the insiders who missed out on a H. Clinton presidency.
I will never get over Democrats supporting Trump in his prosecution of Assange because they decided that Assange supported Trump. Convincing people to support Trump prosecuting a journalist in order to avenge H. Clinton's loss to Trump is a real knot of a thought process to be twisted into.
Assange is not charged only for doing journalism, such as revealing secret information. Assange is also charged for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and conspiring to do so.
Journalists rightfully defend Assange only in the the first type of charges, but not in the second type. He should go to US and face charges. Assange stopped being journalist at some point and started actively participating in crimes not covered by journalist ethics.
>Assange is also charged for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and conspiring to do so.
But if you read all the detailed reporting from Wired (and others) at the time, including interviews with the rat (Adrian Lamo, https://www.wired.com/2010/06/leak/ , https://www.wired.com/2010/05/lamo/) who made up that claim to save his own butt, it's clear that that charge is false as well. Assange never commited computer intrusion himself and he also never encouraged others to do so. That was a lie the FBI forced Lamo into during the case against Manning.
Some comments were deferred for faster rendering.
masfuerte|2 years ago
93po|2 years ago
If Assange did what was alleged, then that's awful and horrible and abusive and those women are victims. However the entirety of the reporting around this is wildly biased and dishonest and clearly manufactured to get him extradited, which worked.
seagullz|2 years ago
pydry|2 years ago
yesenadam|2 years ago
> Our next rally for Julian Assange is Saturday, March 4 at 11:30 to 12:30pm. We will gather at Park St. Station on the Boston Common to speak out for Assange and gather signatures on our petition to our senators. (See how the media failed Julian Assange at Harper's Magazine.)
https://stallman.org/
starkd|2 years ago
[deleted]
calibas|2 years ago
In my opinion, one of the best ways of identifying an authoritarian is to ask them their opinions on Snowden or Assange.
throw10920|2 years ago
In your "opinion", what fraction of the documents that Edward Snowden stole were directly related to spying on American citizens?
wunderland|2 years ago
shp0ngle|2 years ago
ip26|2 years ago
JumpCrisscross|2 years ago
These are complex situations. If you’re basing your binary judgement of an even-more complex political spectrum (it isn’t really a spectrum) on these cases, your model is mis-tuned. I’m sure, for example, Putin would find both exemplary figures. That doesn’t make him a Solon.
rocket_surgeron|2 years ago
As far as Assange goes I think he is a liar.
The primary piece of evidence I use to support this is that he claims that his media firm, Sunshine Press was a non-profit when its documents of incorporation list it as a private limited company.
https://www.facebook.com/WikiLeaks.SunshinePress
>Official Facebook Page-- The Sunshine Press (Wikileaks), is an international non-profit organization
(That's all I've got as its website is dead now)
Incorporation document: https://www.scribd.com/doc/47601520/SUNSHINE-PRESS-PRODUCTIO...
Definition of EHF: https://island.is/en/limited-liability-companies
A second piece of evidence is that the original release of Collateral Murder was edited to remove the armed men accompanying the journalists who were killed and the unedited version was only released after public outcry. The presence of armed men escorting the journalists may have been used to justify the attack, which occurred just a couple hundred meters from an active firefight, so the context was deleted in the initial release.
A third piece of evidence is that Assange lied to John Young, a highly-respected member of the "leaking" community to get him to register the original Wikileaks domain waaaay back in the day and then the Wikileaks community turned on John when he dared speak out.
https://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm
Finally, a fourth piece of evidence is that they used Wau Holland (Chaos Computer Club) as an initial fundraising arm to funnel money to Sunshine Press, and Wau Holland promised an audit of the substantial sums of money being directed to Sunshine Press, but they only ended up publishing three bare-bones "transparency reports" after millions had been spent and their tax-free status had been revoked for funding a for-profit enterprise. Once it became impossible to funnel donations tax-free to the for-profit business through Wau Holland donations slowed, communications stopped, and the association between the two ended. Please note that none of the banking shenanigans going on at the time impacted Wau Holland.
https://wauland.de/en/projects/enduring-freedom-of-informati...
Does any of the above make me an authoritarian?
superkuh|2 years ago
phphphphp|2 years ago
Suggesting that people started thinking negatively about wikileaks once it came for “their side” is painfully revisionist. Many people believe wikileaks is a net good but despise Assange. Assange failed wikileaks, the media did not fail Assange.
psychphysic|2 years ago
My pet theory is that the true effect of "cancel culture" isn't really on rich/popular people. But the public cancelling means on an individual level social groups eventually become homogeneous in their views.
The result is you must eject any idea, person or news source which doesn't 100% align with the current group values.
The outcome is that entities which don't take sides are the real victims of cancel culture. Why is does CNN always come to the same conclusions and cover the same things? Why does Fox? It's because if they stray they are goners.
WikiLeaks was truly neutral dumping all info it got. That was in no one's interest other than the diminishing open minded groups.
mjklin|2 years ago
snehk|2 years ago
psychlops|2 years ago
BashiBazouk|2 years ago
bayesian_horse|2 years ago
That's got nothing to do with political views. And the charges against him are still perfectly legal. An "authoritarian" system would go about this completely differently.
gWPVhyxPHqvk|2 years ago
> “We believe it would be much better for GOP to win.”
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks...
mhh__|2 years ago
I don't know if they are evil but I find it very hard to view them as anything other than selectively truthful at best.
raincole|2 years ago
barrysteve|2 years ago
The minute he published Collateral Murder, a video maximizing publicity on a fatal error in America's war effort, that was it for Assange and Wikileaks.
mint2|2 years ago
In his later years his work became similar to that of breitbart, James okeef, and tucker Carlson. Regardless of what one thinks of those, There’s no question that their publications and intentions are extremely slanted.
No surprise most of the country dislikes him
yucky|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
fmajid|2 years ago
melast|2 years ago
https://michaelwest.com.au/documents-show-no-sign-albanese-g...
TheHappyOddish|2 years ago
Please prove me wrong and show me these signs.
Albo's no different to the last 6 who had the job.
realjhol|2 years ago
wunderland|2 years ago
bayesian_horse|2 years ago
Most of the negative consequences in his life stem from him running from this accusation, and from the rape charges in Sweden. He'd like to frame it in a different light, understandably...
mariusor|2 years ago
petesergeant|2 years ago
Oh come the heck on, it’s a standard British Category A prison. Any comparison to Gitmo are prima facie ludicrous and makes the rest of the article suspect
psychlops|2 years ago
"Between 2001 and 2002, Belmarsh Prison was used to detain a number of people indefinitely without charge or trial under the provisions of the Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, leading it to be called the "British version of Guantanamo Bay"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Prison_Belmarsh
neonate|2 years ago
rejectfinite|2 years ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20230319140022/https://harpers.o...
jonathanstrange|2 years ago
206lol|2 years ago
Yes, a deliberate smear campaign exists, but also these are institutions with complex histories. You cannot simply call anyone critical of them "gullible".
antibasilisk|2 years ago
webdoodle|2 years ago
stillbourne|2 years ago
yesenadam|2 years ago
So, who do you think it should be instead? (genuine question)
awill88|2 years ago
[deleted]
anothernewdude|2 years ago
[deleted]
r3trohack3r|2 years ago
Do you believe it’s acceptable to revoke journalist’s protection for the reasons you’ve listed and jail them for the reasons you’ve listed?
Are there any journalists you might agree with, that don’t share any of the traits of your rant, that are going to suffer downstream from you being okay with revoking journalistic protections on these conditions?
headsoup|2 years ago
chiefalchemist|2 years ago
It's the same page from the same playbook...repeat X enough times - regardless of accuracy - and perception becomes reality.
Nearly every major news organization practices this, shamelessly. It's a biz model based on eye-ball not journalism standards. It's a biz model that protects the few and the expense of properly informing the many.
bandyaboot|2 years ago
barbacoa|2 years ago
Similarly the recent Twitter revelations on Hamilton68 showed that the Russian bots on manipulating social media was more or less BS.
Who know what really happened, but what may have happened was that the hacking was blamed on Russia instead of say China, or [insert foreign adversary] because the FBI panicked when trump was elected after using the Steele dossier to spy on his campaign and needed a narrative to justify their actions.
mardifoufs|2 years ago
pessimizer|2 years ago
I don't know why you would talk like this. This is just a big lie wrapped in a sarcastic and condescending tone substituting for evidence. What you believe is not interesting to people, they care why you believe it because you may have an argument they haven't thought of.
The only thing that you're explaining to us is that you accept every anti-Assange argument proffered by the Democratic Party, and that the fact that the release was damaging is enough information to "confirm" for you that they are all true. If the release weren't damaging, there'd be no reason to talk about it, therefore you're citing the reasons you're having a discussion of Assange's guilt as evidence of Assange's guilt. It's weaker than circumstantial, even; you've simply decided that the DNC emails were released optimally for mysterious Russian interests, and are making a secular intelligent design argument.
I can't be read as anything but a public statement that you'll accept any charge against anyone accused of damaging your party, and over the subject of the safety of a journalist exposing government corruption no less. The scariest part of the whole thing is that the DNC emails exposed corruption. We should be celebrating their release because they exposed as true what was only suspected before. The Democratic Party fired people over it. But the current zeitgeist is about suppressing information from enemies and boosting information from friends, and Assange is a designated enemy. If the Democratic Party weren't so horrifically undemocratic internally, it would be celebrating the exposure of corruption in its own ranks, but instead it mourns the financial losses of the insiders who missed out on a H. Clinton presidency.
I will never get over Democrats supporting Trump in his prosecution of Assange because they decided that Assange supported Trump. Convincing people to support Trump prosecuting a journalist in order to avenge H. Clinton's loss to Trump is a real knot of a thought process to be twisted into.
nabla9|2 years ago
Assange is not charged only for doing journalism, such as revealing secret information. Assange is also charged for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and conspiring to do so.
Journalists rightfully defend Assange only in the the first type of charges, but not in the second type. He should go to US and face charges. Assange stopped being journalist at some point and started actively participating in crimes not covered by journalist ethics.
superkuh|2 years ago
But if you read all the detailed reporting from Wired (and others) at the time, including interviews with the rat (Adrian Lamo, https://www.wired.com/2010/06/leak/ , https://www.wired.com/2010/05/lamo/) who made up that claim to save his own butt, it's clear that that charge is false as well. Assange never commited computer intrusion himself and he also never encouraged others to do so. That was a lie the FBI forced Lamo into during the case against Manning.
DangitBobby|2 years ago
adgjlsfhk1|2 years ago