Biden says he is ‘considering’ Australian call to drop Julian Assange charges
Biden says he is ‘considering’ Australian call to drop Julian Assange charges
US prosecutors say the WikiLeaks founder encouraged and helped Chelsea Manning steal classified files before publishing them
Joe Biden said on Wednesday that he is considering a request from Australia to drop the decade-long US push to prosecute the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing a trove of American classified documents.
You're viewing a single thread.
The guy who passed hacked intelligence from a Russian agent to the Trump campaign whilst pretending it was from DNC staffer Seth Rich (which was an alt-right conspiracy theory) even when he knew that wasn't true, and even after Seth Rich was dead and he knew it wasn't true?
The guy who meddled in election outcomes because he thought he had a better shot at being pardoned by Trump?
The guy who was originally on charges for slipping a condom off whilst having sex?
Yes, this guy. This messenger you're currently shooting deserves a pardon and multiple awards.
He exposed more corruption and illegal actions than either of us ever will. We need to encourage these heroic deeds. The FBI planted evidence on him. His client attorney privilege was violated. If he was actually such a bad person, these illegal lengths should never have been used to frame him.
His human rights should absolutely be respected, but I think the world will be a worse place with this guy running around.
As a messenger, his organization turned a blind eye on one side (WikiLeaks refused to publish Russian government documents: Report, WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign) and instead collaborated with them, to the degree of forging messages and using leaks to distract from equally newsworthy dirty laundry.
I'd compare him to a cop who selectively polices crime gang A but ignores crime gang B. And whose phone number is found with members of crime gang B, together with evidence that they could call the cop at any time (and did so) to appear inside crime gang A's territory. Yes, technically, the cop has apprehended more criminals than either of us ever will and we could give him a medal for his work (and crime gang B is certainly motivated to help that along to get this cop more entrenched and promoted).
Literally from the article you posted:
“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,” the organization wrote in a Twitter direct message when contacted by FP about the Russian cache.
Assange has mentioned on numerous occasions that they get a lot of fake leaks sent by ABCs designed to hurt WikiLeaks' credibility. Unless there is concrete evidence of him being a Russian asset (and it has to be concrete, especially knowing that he has literally been framed by the FBI on multiple occasions), I'm not going to immediately drop my support for whistleblowers.
Also literally from the article I posted:
“We had several leaks sent to Wikileaks, including the Russian hack. It would have exposed Russian activities and shown WikiLeaks was not controlled by Russian security services,” the source who provided the messages wrote to FP. “Many Wikileaks staff and volunteers or their families suffered at the hands of Russian corruption and cruelty, we were sure Wikileaks would release it. Assange gave excuse after excuse.”
Neither of our quotes really adds anything to the discussion.
A nebulous policy to reject "anything WL can't verify" or "has been published elsewhere" or "is likely to be considered insignificant" or is "diversionary (to WL's election interference)" is a carte blanche for Assange to turn down anything that he doesn't like.
What I have seen concrete evidence for is that Assange wanted Trump to win (In Leaked Chats, WikiLeaks Discusses Preference for GOP Over Clinton, Russia, Trolling, and Feminists They Don’t Like <- contains verified excepts from leaked internal WikiLeaks chats). And for strongly pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory (hinting in multiple interviews that Seth Rich was behind the DNC leaks and even posting a $20000 reward for the murder case).
I won't even ask for concrete evidence that the FBI has framed Assange, because in the big picture, it doesn't change who he is or what he does. To me, it's been sufficiently proven that he takes sides (that's an 'F' for integrity, report the story, don't be part of the story), that he collaborated in anti-democratic GOP activities and that his promotes views that align with the gunk spread by "Russia Today" or "Sputnik." Whether that's because he a Russian asset or because he's had a false awakening into the conspirational world view Russian information warfare uses to twist people, who knows. I'll withhold judgment on that one, but I also won't expect him to do anything good for the world.
I just want to say I don't disagree with anything you said on in facts of your comment (like WikiLeaks' chatlogs). Those are facts. The other things like what WikiLeaks can or cannot verify are the he said/she said, and I'm cautious to blame WikiLeaks for it because of all the BS and slander (much of which was later found out to be false) that Assange faced.
Even if we ignore the fact of who Assange is - I don't want future whistleblowers to get the same illegal treatment (like the attorney client privilege abuse) as Assange. Precedence matters in cases like this. It determines what future whistleblowers will face.
I won't even ask for evidence
Here it is anyways: https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/the-fbi-tried-to-make-iceland-a-complicit-ally-in-framing-julian-assange,13277
The quotes are from the Minister of the Interior, and later the Minister of Justice in Iceland, in case you were wondering on the reputabilitiy.
He would be easier to support if he had just kept releasing important news/evidence when it was morally justified, and not got into the more questionable activities of private intelligence - such as election meddling.
Bad move on his part, makes him a lot harder to defend.
A million people died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, despite global protests and outrage. Sometimes it feels like there must be better systems than the current set up of "democracy".
He's an absolute scum bag and is directly responsible for Trump's election.
That said, my personal feelings about him are irrelevant. Whistle-blowers are an important part of democracy and must be protected.
It isn't whistle blowing if you're using it for your own personal gain. Then it is just politics
He sold away his whistle blower status in my book when he was attempting to manipulate elections and wasn't being 100% truthful
I don't think he would have done that if we didn't pursue him like a dog and threaten to throw the book at him, as a whistleblower.
If we'd given him proper whistleblower protections, he wouldn't have fled for his life or intentionally jumped in our enemies pockets
Nah that man has an agenda.
He's basically a tattle-tale so he can benefit. Not a whistle-blower with the intent to help people like Manning or Snowden. He's just an asshole.
I dont consider the release of any government secrets that SHOULD be public to be 'tattle tale'-ing.
Can you detail his agenda, so that I can know what you're meaning?
Wikileaks and Assange have both tried to sell themselves as whistle blowers fighting for truth and while they have revealed evil and wrongdoing. They utilize Russian information networks and specifically place focus on the US.
In anyone reasonable's eyes you would tell Assange isn't a whistle blower, he is a player in the game and WikiLeaks is literally just another propaganda outlet like the rest of them that tries to act differently.
He's an absolute scum bag and is directly responsible for Trump's election.
How so? Everything released was genuine. Maybe the Clinton campaign shouldn't have been so shitty.
Don't shoot the messenger.
As you well know, the release was timed to maximise the damage to Clinton's campaign. Assange's hatred of Clinton was well established long before.
maximise the damage to Clinton's campaign
No. Timed to maximise the exposure for wikileaks, to encourage more leaking.
Assange's hatred of Clinton was well established long before.
More because she hates him. She was pushing to indict him after publishing the 2010 diplomatic cables showing complicit spying during her tenure as secretary of state. The same ones he's now being held in prison for.
pretending it was from DNC staffer Seth Rich (which was an alt-right conspiracy theory).
Is it though? Then why bury seth rich's files for 66 years?
The guy who was originally on charges for slipping a condom off whilst having sex?