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.”
Assange was the tool of a foreign intelligence service who salted WikiLeaks with disinformation harmful to national interests. I believe the term of art is “useful idiot”.
Do you have evidence for that or should I don the proverbial tinfoil hat?
Thank you for the link, it was an interesting read. Allow me to unpack your previous statement for the sake of argument.
Assange was the tool of a foreign intelligence service
No argument here. Wittingly or not, he was used as a destabilizing force by Russia, and that is corroborated in the article.
who salted WikiLeaks with disinformation
Disinformation implies he shared falsehoods. However, the article and the state both treat his disclosures not as fabrications, but as factual. This is what I was really looking for in terms of evidence. It would indeed be quite a revelation to me.
harmful to national interests.
That is a matter of opinion. Here’s another take: The crimes the state committed were harmful to the nation. Exposing them was beneficial as it allows the nation to set the state back on the right path.
I believe the term of art is “useful idiot”.
That might very well be the case. One could make the case that Assange was merely working with the information he got. It just turned out the information was one sided because one side had external help in espionage resources. The article is ambiguous about it but does tend to put him in a less innocent light though.
I don’t have a firm position on this one that I feel is stable or fully defensible. I suspect this might be a case where a scumbag has to go free because as they say, prosecuting him does seem to set a pretty horrific precedent that you know damn well will be misused against everyone if allowed to be set.
At the same time, fuck this stooge, fuck him with a broomstick. I’m no loyal Democrat but he absolutely, without question, picked a fucking side and did everything he could to serve that side’s interests at a crucial moment which did successfully result in years of chaos and irreparable damage to American society. Accelerationists get fucked with your “better to burn it down and start over” year zero Khmer Fucking Rouge Horseshit. I remember the day he pulled that shit and reading his smug statement like he was taking some historic stand for truth or whatever, and I have laughed my ass off when I think about him pacing back and forth in a room for years.
He currently has the life he deserves, whether they ever bother to prosecute, and that doesn’t bother me a whit. In no real sense is he a journalist, he’s an activist misusing a vulnerable social construct (“the press”) for his own agenda. What actually is/was that agenda? I don’t have a clue, other than some vague notion of Being A Powerful Man, maybe. He’s a stooge for people who use the worst tactics to attain power. I would not piss on him if he was on fire.
I feel out of the loop, anything past Chelsea Manning really. Oh and the sexual assault accusations. What’s the “picking a side and creating chaos” piece?
Exact dates escape me because I’d just as soon it all never happened. These are the rough outlines cause now my bile is up.
But, it’s days before the 2016 election and everyone is laaaaaaaaughing at the idea of Trump winning. It was a real “Dewey Defeats Truman” moment except instead of one gun-jumping paper it was half the fucking country. Not me, and not a few other people who went on the record; Michael Moore called it, on the record, before anyone else that I’m aware of. I’m not a fan of his, cause after a while he becomes kind of, I dunno, cloying. But he called it a good year before the election, and he called it accurately for the right reasons.
Anyways, Assange released a bunch of nothingburgers about Clinton days before, but it was a sufficiently large trove of emails or whatthefuckever that there was no possibility of its being properly assessed on any level, and that analysis getting into the public mind before the election, in the first place. But never mind that, a lie can go round the world etc etc, and the Gamergate machine under Steve Gammon’s control had already stoked a forest fire of fascistic emotion, for which these “Hilary Papers” became explosive fuel. I was on Twitter in the year or two after that and I remember “But Her Emails” being the venomous hashtag accompanying every picture of refugee children in cages and such.
That was one punch of two, delivered by Assange through Wikileaks, and that was the moment that I became his personal enemy, whatever the law might think. It was a piece of a calculated and coordinated propagandist operation, is my opinion on the matter. Or he was just that big of an asshole. I don’t know, as I said, what all he thought he was getting, other than attention, which let’s face it, is enough for most. Maybe he also thought that there was no way Trump could possibly actually win, and he was trying to shortsell a bit of extra heat for the coming highly-lucrative Clinton presidency. Lots of fuckwits did that too.
The other punch was of course the FBI guy announcing, this one I remember was eight days before the election, that they were investigating Clinton. Again, I cannot say that this was in any way coordinated, but boy did it put a real period on the whole “Clintons are murderers who are going to be exposed any day now” conspiracy that remains strong. Comey’s PR since then has crafted an image of a resolute lawman who did what he was supposed to do according to the book. Such homunculi do exist in America. Fuck him too.
I dunno if that clarifies anything at all but that’s another serving of my loathing. P.T. Barnum still has the pulse of America.
*Edit: I give some very flippant replies to an earnest defender of Comey further down in the thread. I did not have the energy at the time so I just defaulted to ACAB, because ACAB.
BUT, here is my only-slightly-more-nuanced take on Comey: Comey also knew that the same dynamics re the dexterity and agility of lies would apply to his Obviously Very Meaningful Announcement only 8 days before an election. He knew that there was no possibility that (a) the public would assume she was innocent until proven guilty, and (b) that even if she was, that truth would never drown out the howls of the Trump faithful, which at the time were very compelling to that bizarre species of ape, the Swing Voter.
He knew he was serving one particular side of this election.
If he didn’t know these things, then he is an incompetent stooge and deserves to go down in history as an Incompetent Stooge.
Either way, fuck him also. *
Comey announcing the Clinton investigation is in no way similar to Assange, despite having a similar effect. Comey was (and is) a boy-scout. He did what he thought was right when being stuck between two bad decisions. I maintain most ethical people, if put in his position, would have done the same thing. Assange is completely different.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
I highly suggest anyone not knowledgable on the subject to quickly read his wiki to get an idea of what he leaked.
We wouldn’t know his name if the us had kept it’s nose clean. He isn’t the bad guy, the country drone striking and killing civilians while illegally spying on its citizens is. State secrets don’t deserve to be kept secret if it’s literally poison and corruption.
"During this time, the organization published internet censorship lists, leaks, and classified media from anonymous sources. The publications include revelations about drone strikes in Yemen, corruption across the Arab world, extrajudicial executions by Kenyan police, 2008 Tibetan unrest in China, and the “Petrogate” oil scandal in Peru. From its inception, the website had a significant impact on political news in a large number of countries and across a wide range of issues.
During this period WikiLeaks had only four permanent staff: Assange, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, and two others using pseudonyms. It had a far larger group of volunteers. Assange was the most powerful individual, as the editor-chief, but he relied upon networks of others with expertise.
From its inception, WikiLeaks sought to engage with the established professional media. It had good relations with parts of the German and British press. A collaboration with the Sunday Times journalist Jon Swain on a report on political killings in Kenya led to increased public recognition of the WikiLeaks’ publication, and this collaboration won Assange the 2009 Amnesty International New Media Award."
He sounds like a Saint
His problem was then exposing the US, which didn’t have a problem with him before. The US was fine with him uncovering corruption in Russian and Chinese backed coups, but then when he specifically targeted the US is when the witch-hunt started
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.
“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.
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
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,
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.
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.
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?
US involvement in those countries vs the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine are completely different.
What if I want my gov manipulating more?
I’d be totally into some manipulation in Russia, North Korea, Iran, Niger, Syria, etc.
Wait, the New York Times edits video and email evidence to make things look like crimes that aren’t?
Wow. News to me.
Do you have any credible sources for that or are you just regurgitating claims from your social media bubble?
It goes all the way back to the beginning with the Apache gunship video they released. They edited that, and the Army released the full video. They edited the DNC emails, and the DNC released the actual emails. They edited the cables and those weren’t released publicly but all that heat died within a week. Read between the lines.
This shit has been open knowledge for years. They were compromised by the GRU and either didn’t care or accepted it willingly. Here’s a Time article directly implicating WikiLeaks in helping Russia interfere with our elections. U.S. Intelligence Report Identifies Russians Who Gave DNC Emails to Wikileaks
That alone is enough to declare them enemies and go after them militarily but we’re still inside the justice system talking about charges and trials. While you guys whine about freedoms, the government is actually holding back.
