"You can publish true information even when it offends and indicts the most powerful person in the room... He's being punished because he did the right thing" - Stella Assange
Stella Assange speaking to the Luxembourg Parliament on the persecution of Julian Assange
Editorial policy is a blatant excuse. Have you scrutinized Fox News, CNN, DW and RT editorial policies? Want them tortured to death too? Nah, that’s just the USA state giving us a lesson to keep our heads down, nothing more, nothing less.
Use the right words, to “held him responsible” means to potentially murder him in the name of democracy. Add to this that the USA state is not going after all these people, nevertheless, they are crossing borders for Assange. They want to show him to the world as an example. Their efforts resemble those they took to get to Osama.
First. No realistically it doesn’t. Second, they should. I never said they shouldn’t. Specifically I said they should hold them all responsible. So I don’t know what you’re getting at. You’re not even addressing what I said.
Are those organizations accused of directly being involved on an individual level in hacks against the USA? Because the allegations against Assange are that he directly was involved in the hack.
"The superseding indictment alleges that Assange was complicit with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, in unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to the national defense. Specifically, the superseding indictment alleges that Assange conspired with Manning; obtained from Manning and aided and abetted her in obtaining classified information with reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation; received and attempted to receive classified information having reason to believe that such materials would be obtained, taken, made, and disposed of by a person contrary to law; and aided and abetted Manning in communicating classified documents to Assange. "
No they do not do that everyday. If a journalist tells you what secret documents to take they are a co-conspirator in the crime. If all he did was receive the documents completely unsolicited then he would have broken no laws. The allegation is that he was directly involved in the planning stages.
And who exactly do you expect to talk about the crimes the US commits? Their allies? Just because the information comes from a biased source doesn’t change the fact that all of the information is accurate. Doesn’t change the extrajudicial killings, illegal detentions, torture…
Like, I’ll give you that he is biased. So what? Are you proud of the things he revealed the US is doing? We commit crimes and then hide behind “national security” when the only “security” being threatened is that of those on top commiting these henious acts and hoping to get away with it.
The source doesn’t change the facts that were presented.
Essentially their policy of leaking everything and anything tended to mostly apply to the US and allies of the US. This would then expose collaborators in places like Belarus and place their lives in danger. Wikileaks would say this was in the name of transparency. However in cases where they were dealing with information being leaked from Russia they would be more careful to editorialize the leaks and protect identities.
Then, aside from that, Assange partook in activities that completely deviated from journalistic protocol and entered the territory of espionage. In particular dealing with the case of chealsea manning, in her communications with Assange, Assange actively aided Chelsea in ways to access restricted information in a way that broke the law. Russian asset or not, that’s a big nono.
Manning’s account should reasonably be called into question, not least because she refused to testify against Assange in 2019 (and was subsequently jailed for 10 months and fined a quarter million).
WikiLeaks’ audience has always been primarily English-speaking, as such their focus is going to be on news related to English-speaking countries. While you’re drawing a difference between two different countries, that could just as easily be explained by a difference in time - people criticised them for their releases in Belarus as being careless and putting lives at risk, so with their later releases around Russia they were more careful.
I just feel like you never would have this impression if you’d just read WikiLeaks’ publications, press releases and social media posts, as well as any other sources on the topics they cover, rather than reading articles about WikiLeaks itself. You would only think WikiLeaks is pro-Russia if you follow a pre-constructed narrative and frame the evidence in a particular way. It’s very murky overall, but I don’t think that viewpoint lines up objectively.
Lol that’s BS, they literally started by leaking mostly secrets of post Soviet states, but nobody gave a shit and editors of news paper there were instructed by their higher ups in Washington not to publish it.
Source: Mediastan (2013)
And yes he probably did have a bias against Hillary, I wonder if that could be because SHE WAS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN HIS PERSECUTION.
How could a secretary of state be involved in prosecution? That’s completely outside their job description and it isn’t as if that’s a job with a lot of free time.
His editorial policy on the release of leaked information was, for lack of a better term, biased.
Editorial policy is a blatant excuse. Have you scrutinized Fox News, CNN, DW and RT editorial policies? Want them tortured to death too? Nah, that’s just the USA state giving us a lesson to keep our heads down, nothing more, nothing less.
We want them all held responsible. That some aren’t isn’t a reason none should be. We have to start somewhere. We shouldn’t stop there.
Use the right words, to “held him responsible” means to potentially murder him in the name of democracy. Add to this that the USA state is not going after all these people, nevertheless, they are crossing borders for Assange. They want to show him to the world as an example. Their efforts resemble those they took to get to Osama.
First. No realistically it doesn’t. Second, they should. I never said they shouldn’t. Specifically I said they should hold them all responsible. So I don’t know what you’re getting at. You’re not even addressing what I said.
Are those organizations accused of directly being involved on an individual level in hacks against the USA? Because the allegations against Assange are that he directly was involved in the hack.
Read the indictment, that is not what’s alleged.
"The superseding indictment alleges that Assange was complicit with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, in unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to the national defense. Specifically, the superseding indictment alleges that Assange conspired with Manning; obtained from Manning and aided and abetted her in obtaining classified information with reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation; received and attempted to receive classified information having reason to believe that such materials would be obtained, taken, made, and disposed of by a person contrary to law; and aided and abetted Manning in communicating classified documents to Assange. "
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-charged-18-count-superseding-indictment
Sounds like this is exactly what he is charged with.
Doesn’t sound like a hack at all. Sounds like they’re saying she gave him docs.
If you read the whole thing it’s that he directed Manning as to what docs to get and advised her how to get them.
yea. Aka what investigative journalists do every day.
No they do not do that everyday. If a journalist tells you what secret documents to take they are a co-conspirator in the crime. If all he did was receive the documents completely unsolicited then he would have broken no laws. The allegation is that he was directly involved in the planning stages.
You are missing the point. I’m not using the editorial bias as an excuse to put the man in a death row.
And who exactly do you expect to talk about the crimes the US commits? Their allies? Just because the information comes from a biased source doesn’t change the fact that all of the information is accurate. Doesn’t change the extrajudicial killings, illegal detentions, torture…
Like, I’ll give you that he is biased. So what? Are you proud of the things he revealed the US is doing? We commit crimes and then hide behind “national security” when the only “security” being threatened is that of those on top commiting these henious acts and hoping to get away with it.
The source doesn’t change the facts that were presented.
Do you have a copy of his editorial policy? I’d like to read it.
It was sarcasm, the point is that they did not follow an editorial policy. At least not in the way they claimed.
https://spotify.link/vh9Y40LWFDb
TL;DL? At least, a little bit more detail, ie what they did and what they claimed the policy was.
Essentially their policy of leaking everything and anything tended to mostly apply to the US and allies of the US. This would then expose collaborators in places like Belarus and place their lives in danger. Wikileaks would say this was in the name of transparency. However in cases where they were dealing with information being leaked from Russia they would be more careful to editorialize the leaks and protect identities.
Then, aside from that, Assange partook in activities that completely deviated from journalistic protocol and entered the territory of espionage. In particular dealing with the case of chealsea manning, in her communications with Assange, Assange actively aided Chelsea in ways to access restricted information in a way that broke the law. Russian asset or not, that’s a big nono.
Manning’s account should reasonably be called into question, not least because she refused to testify against Assange in 2019 (and was subsequently jailed for 10 months and fined a quarter million).
WikiLeaks’ audience has always been primarily English-speaking, as such their focus is going to be on news related to English-speaking countries. While you’re drawing a difference between two different countries, that could just as easily be explained by a difference in time - people criticised them for their releases in Belarus as being careless and putting lives at risk, so with their later releases around Russia they were more careful.
I just feel like you never would have this impression if you’d just read WikiLeaks’ publications, press releases and social media posts, as well as any other sources on the topics they cover, rather than reading articles about WikiLeaks itself. You would only think WikiLeaks is pro-Russia if you follow a pre-constructed narrative and frame the evidence in a particular way. It’s very murky overall, but I don’t think that viewpoint lines up objectively.
Lol that’s BS, they literally started by leaking mostly secrets of post Soviet states, but nobody gave a shit and editors of news paper there were instructed by their higher ups in Washington not to publish it.
Source: Mediastan (2013)
And yes he probably did have a bias against Hillary, I wonder if that could be because SHE WAS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN HIS PERSECUTION.
Actually the Clinton/Podesta emails revealed a lot of dirt on Trump too, dirt the DNC had dug up…
But none of the RNC data that also was stolen…
Indeed!
How could a secretary of state be involved in prosecution? That’s completely outside their job description and it isn’t as if that’s a job with a lot of free time.
You somehow think that the release of the State Department cables have nothing to do with the secret indictment?
There is no secret indictment. We know exactly what the allegations are because that information is public.
Regardless of that the Secretary of State is not providing direct input into the prosecution of an individual.
In Assange’s specific case he was charged during Trump’s presidency so Hilary could not at any point have been involved in his prosecution.
You are confused and you likely read shitty sources.