TIL about the "'New York Times problem'—the dilemma of indicting Assange for the very same kind of investigative journalism that mainstream media engages frequently"
TIL about the "'New York Times problem'—the dilemma of indicting Assange for the very same kind of investigative journalism that mainstream media engages frequently"
Julian Assange warned the public that the goal in Afghanistan "is to have an endless war, not a successful war."
Two of us, Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky, testified for Assange at his extradition hearing last year. In Ellsberg's words then, the WikiLeaks publications that Assange is being charged for are "amongst the most important truthful revelations of hidden criminal state behavior that have been made public in U.S. history." The American public "needed urgently to know what was being done routinely in their name, and there was no other way for them to learn it than by unauthorized disclosure."
You're viewing a single thread.
Permanently Deleted
I don't know in which reality you live that state secret takes precedent over criminal activity.
How are you going to handle Trump's indictments then?
Please enlighten me as to how strategically leaking Hillary Clinton's email to hurt her election chances is reporting on "criminal activity"
Assange leaked shit to manipulate opinions in a way he directed, and was fed info and money from Russia to do so. Nearly all of what he leaked was meaningless info meant solely to influence optics.
That's rather a significant difference from investigative reporting.
Thats not what he is being prossecuted for. He is being prosecuted for publishing secrets given to him by someone else, an activity that American journalists have engaged in forever and part of standard journalism.
Its also concerning because Assange is not a US citizen and was not in the US at the time he published. So he is being prosecuted for sonething which may not be a crime, which was done in a place the US has no jurisdiction, by a foreign citizen.
Lmao ok
"I can't compile a coherent counter argument so here's this"
I don't argue with conspiracy theorists
???
Permanently Deleted
Looking at the downvotes to this I cant help but to feel lemmy is just a higher octane reddit tbh. My man is literally stating facts that no one seems to disagree with
We see the world in different ways.
I see it as exposing corruption within our institutions of power.
I think you see it as, just crimes... and you miss the importance of what these people have risked to inform the public.
It was ground breaking everytime these leaks happen. The problem is that propaganda machines and MSM twist it to lessen the impact everytime. Pitting the common people against those that help see the truth.
edit: words
Permanently Deleted
I tend to somewhat stay hopeful:
Hope and optimism are different. Optimism tends to be based on the notion that there's enough evidence out there to believe things are gonna be better, much more rational, deeply secular, whereas hope looks at the evidence and says, "It doesn't look good at all. Doesn't look good at all. Gonna go beyond the evidence to create new possibilities based on visions that become contagious to allow people to engage in heroic actions always against the odds, no guarantee whatsoever." That's hope. I'm a prisoner of hope, though. Gonna die a prisoner of hope. -Cornel West
Take the wins with the losses.
Coming together to learn and teach, like we do on social media, by talking and interacting with people of different views and backgrounds.
This is a more hopeful than ignoring or name calling people we do not agree with.
To me, I try to stay some what hopeful:
Hope and optimism are different. Optimism tends to be based on the notion that there's enough evidence out there to believe things are gonna be better, much more rational, deeply secular, whereas hope looks at the evidence and says, "It doesn't look good at all. Doesn't look good at all. Gonna go beyond the evidence to create new possibilities based on visions that become contagious to allow people to engage in heroic actions always against the odds, no guarantee whatsoever." That's hope. I'm a prisoner of hope, though. Gonna die a prisoner of hope. -Cornel West
Here ae more quotes, if you are interested: Source where I found the one above.
https://www.azquotes.com/author/15512-Cornel_West
Need to take the wins where we can,
The first amendment gives freedom of the press.
Journalists can publish whatever they want, as long as it's true, even if it contains state secrets.
Maybe you should care about what your government does in foreign countries. Particularly when it is routinely murder and manipulation, as is the case with the U.S. government.
That aside, I invite you on a thought experiment:
Let’s say everyone took your advice and just let the government hide whatever it wanted because it is a “state secret”. Let’s say then the government goes ham and commits a bunch of atrocities. What would stop it from declaring them state secrets to prevent the public from knowing about them?
Permanently Deleted
US involvement in those countries vs the Kremlin's invasion of Ukraine are completely different.
Permanently Deleted
What if I want my gov manipulating more?
I'd be totally into some manipulation in Russia, North Korea, Iran, Niger, Syria, etc.
oh yeah, because that's always gone so well!
US/Euro hegemony has been some of the most peaceful time in human history, and many people internationally have been brought out of poverty. Compare that to the most recent serious alternatives:
- the USSR caused famine for it's own citizens and killed people who tried to leave
- China forcefully suppresses alternative perspectives, continues imperial land grabs, and has some of the worst journalist freedoms of any country
As someone that experienced the tail end of one of the many dictatorships propped up by the US in Latin America, go peddle your shit elsewhere.
Going well in Ukraine, and I'd like to see that aid heavily escalated, too.
Would've been great if we'd saved Syria during the Arab Spring.
That’s gross imo.
Watergate was a state secret.
No ot wasn't. The break in was not in the name of the US Government. It was in the name of a presidential candidate.
The information given to the reporters was confidential information. I don't know how to tell you this other than that confidential information held by the government is a state secret. There's no actual term "state secret". There's just public and non-public information and various tiers within that framework.
Yeah you make good points. I think Watergate is still very different because the initial crime wasn't on behalf of or sanctioned by the government. The wider cover-up was to an extent. I think there is some gray area too. Like you say there is no "state secret". But when is confidential information held by the government vs individuals within the government holding confidential information? An individual within the government can keep a secret from both the broader government and the public.
The information Felt released wasn't just something only he knew. It's simply that it wasn't enough on its own and no one was chasing down the proper leads due to the coverup in play. The White House is the government. The administration partook in the coverup. Its just fewer people in the government being part of a coverup. Anything that's illegal is still illegal. The government is behind both, it's simply a matter of how much and what parts of the government.
Permanently Deleted
State secret that a bunch of broskis in an AC130 were playing target practice with civilians.
Oh, we're all well aware how much you care about the world beyond your borders.
When states hide crimes by making them secret, that is called a cover up. Cover-ups are illegal. Publishing documentation of crimes is not.
“The post-conventional level [of morality], also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual's own perspective may take precedence over society's view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level.
Kohlberg has speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.”
That I can find two ways to apply this here and get opposing results, I'm curious to know what context you're sharing this.
Interesting, I don't see the other one. I meant to imply that this guy seems to like to conflate the law with morality with regards to the outrage over Assange, as if he has not reached the post-conventional stage. "Why are people outraged, he broke the law, you can disagree but the law's the law." is how I interpret his thinking, and I think that's childish.
Well you cared when you got a bit of karma during 9/11.
Maybe you need more before you care?
Permanently Deleted